The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent’s professional service contract as a teacher for unsatisfactory performance or incompetence.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner first employed Respondent on August 23, 1977, in a paraprofessional position as a bilingual tutor. While so employed, Respondent attended Nova University working toward a degree in early education. She earned her degree in 1989 and received a teaching certificate in elementary education and English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). Respondent’s first instructional assignment was as an ESOL teacher at the start of the 1989-90 school year. She did not have a classroom, but taught as a pullout teacher. She remained in this position for four years. Respondent was first assigned to a regular classroom in the 1993-94 school year when her ESOL program was terminated. She taught a combined first and second grade class for the 1993- school year and then taught a second grade class for the 1994- school year. On March 1, 1994, Susan Griesinger became the principal of Tice Elementary School. There was little substantive contact between Dr. Griesinger and Respondent during the 1993-94 school year. During the 1994-95 school year, Dr. Griesinger twice observed and evaluated Respondent’s classroom performance. The evaluations were satisfactory. The Summative Observation Instrument for an observation of a second-grade mathematics class on November 17, 1994, contains numerous indications that Respondent has adequately organized and presented the instructional material. Student misbehavior was not an issue during the class. Dr. Griesinger concludes the evaluation by writing: “Your enthusiasm is catching! Many concepts in one lesson. Students enjoyed the clocks.” Dr. Griesinger prepared a second Summative Observation Instrument for an observation of another second-grade mathematics class on February 27, 1995. This evaluation is much the same as the first and concludes: “This was a hard concept. I am glad you gave the children actual shapes.” On March 6, 1995, Dr. Griesinger prepared Respondent’s year-end Performance Assessment. Respondent received satisfactory grades in all 40 categories. These grades are “Effective level of performance,” which is the only satisfactory grading option on the form. However, for two categories for which Respondent received satisfactory grades, Dr. Griesinger noted the need for “Focus for development/feedback.” Falling under “Presentation of Subject Matter,” the two categories were “Teaches a systematic process for developing academic values” and “Demonstrates knowledge of subject matter.” The Performance Assessment concludes: “Carmen has tried very hard this year to reach all students. She has a positive attitude.” Between the preparation of the Performance Assessment and the end of the 1994-95 school year, Dr. Griesinger and her assistant principal, Holly Bell, began receiving parent complaints about Respondent. The parents questioned whether Respondent could control her class. When Dr. Griesinger asked Respondent about the complaints, Respondent attributed the problems to a handful of misbehaving students. The following school year, Dr. Griesinger observed Respondent’s teaching more closely to see if there was a problem. Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, and the guidance counselor conducted several informal observations of Respondent’s classroom. During the summer, Tice Elementary School had received a grant to hire an outside teaching consultant to train teachers in peer coaching. Dr. Griesinger asked the consultant, Kaye Sutcliff, to observe Respondent and make suggestions. Ms. Sutcliff observed Respondent and suggested that she find other employment. On October 24, 1995, Dr. Griesinger sent a memorandum to Respondent confirming a meeting that they had had the prior day. The memorandum memorializes a concern with the “lack of classroom management we see this year” and states that Respondent is not consistent with discipline. The memorandum also mentions another concern as to how Respondent “present[s] your content to the students.” The memorandum elaborates: Last year I had a difficult time following your lesson when I came in to do your observation. I talked with you about some things you could have done differently. You need to be very specific when you are introducing new concepts. The memorandum concludes that Dr. Griesinger will be doing formal and informal observations to assist Respondent. The memorandum restates that Dr. Griesinger has asked Respondent to work closely with her coach and video and audio tape her lessons to see how she can improve and make her content clearer. The memorandum tells Respondent that Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, and Lynn Pottorf will work with Respondent to try to help her. Ms. Pottorf was the Elementary Generalist Coordinator employed in the District office. On January 4, 1996, Dr. Griesinger wrote a memorandum to Dr. Madeline Doran, Director of Personnel, asking that she place Respondent in the Intensive Assistance Program as soon as possible due to “extreme difficulty with classroom management, curriculum content and lesson delivery.” Acting on the advice of Dr. Griesinger and Dr. Doran, Dr. Jerry Baker, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, informed Respondent by letter dated January 24, 1996, that he was placing her in the eight-week Intensive Assistance Program. As part of the program, Dr. Doran formed an assistance team consisting of Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, Ronalee Ashby, and Ms. Pottorf. Ms. Ashby is the District Coordinator of Personnel Services. The purpose of the team is to help the teacher as much as possible through observing her classroom teaching and discussing their findings with the teacher at weekly meetings. The team reviews the teacher’s performance and recommends further action to Dr. Doran. The Intensive Assistance Program informs the teacher that, based on input from the team and Dr. Doran, Petitioner may determine that the teacher’s performance is adequate, extend the Intensive Assistance Program for another eight weeks, recommend reassignment to a more suitable position, withhold recommendation for an annual reappointment, determine that the teacher’s performance is inadequate and recommend dismissal or recommend acceptance of the teacher’s resignation. On January 30, 1996, Ms. Ashby had a meeting with Respondent during which Ms. Ashby explained the Intensive Assistance Program in detail. Respondent completed an interview form for the Intensive Assistance Program. In the form, Respondent noted no particular problems interfering with her teaching. She stated that she was “okay with subj[ect],” but had some problems gathering materials. She mentioned two students out of 20 in her class who presented behavioral problems and one student who presented academic problems. She stated that she would like to get the students more involved. She stated that her general health was “good--some headaches,” and she denied having any nonschool problems adversely affecting her teaching. On March 20, 1996, Jo Ellen Kessler, Coordinator of Curriculum Services, conducted a two-hour observation, concluding that she never saw Respondent provide instruction for the students. Ms. Kessler stated: Dr. [Griesinger] asked that I spend at least one hour in the classroom. I spent approximately two hours there because I kept waiting for Ms. Hernandez to provide instruction for the students. During the time I was in the classroom, there was no review of any material. There was no introduction, no initial instruction. No clear directions were given for doing the activities on the chalkboard. The students were given no reason for learning. There was no motivation for learning, no personal connections made. There were no instructional materials prepared for them to use during the lesson, other than the things written on the chalkboard--certainly not the best way to engage students. There was no evidence of any materials prepared for students of differing abilities. There was no instruction given to help any of them learn the skills involved. . . . The children who behaved nicely were not really acknowledged for their attention or behavior. No specific praise was given to any student. Most of the well behaved children were not given an opportunity to be involved in the tasks. They sat with nothing to do. The students were given no clear expectation of what their behaviors should be. They had no limits set, no idea of what was acceptable and what was not. The students were not engaged in any of the tasks. They hung over their desks, put their heads down and appeared quite bored. In summary, the students did almost nothing for a two-hour period. The teacher was not teaching and was completely ineffective in managing their behavior. They were not involved in meaningful review or practice. Their behavior would be much improved if they had well-planned instruction and materials and if they were given meaningful learning tasks. The children in the room appeared to be bright and willing to learn, but they were not given the opportunity to do so. On March 22, 1996, Dr. Baker, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, sent a letter to Respondent giving her official notice, pursuant to Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes, that her performance was “unsatisfactory” and, if the deficiencies were not corrected next year, he would recommend that the School Board terminate her at the close of the 1996-97 school year. On March 25, 1996, Dr. Griesinger prepared Respondent’s year-end Performance Assessment. In contrast to the preceding year, Respondent received only four satisfactory grades, all in conformance to school and district rules. Nearly all of the other grades were “Unacceptable level of performance observed.” The Performance Assessment concludes: “Carmen needs to improve drastically in all areas.” On the same day, Ms. Bell had to go to Respondent’s classroom to restore order. Hearing Respondent and students shouting from outside the door, Ms. Bell found seven students out of their seats and the remaining students seated with nothing to do. The prior day a substitute teacher had had no problem with the class. On or about April 4, 1996, Respondent went on medical leave for the rest of the school year due to anxiety and menstrual problems. At the hearing, Respondent produced little, if any, evidence concerning the onset of her medical problems or their effect on her teaching. The preponderance of the evidence proves that demands that Respondent improve her classroom performance preceded the medical problems, although Respondent’s complaints of anxiety may have been exacerbated by these demands. Dr. Griesinger hired a substitute teacher for the remainder of the school year. The substitute teacher had no problem teaching Respondent’s class for the next two months. Respondent returned to work at the start of the 1996-97 school year with clearance from her physician. She was assigned a second grade class. Separate observations on September 4, 1996, by Dr. Griesinger and Ms. Bell record a boy barking like a dog in the back row during class without notice from Respondent, a boy sleeping so soundly that Respondent twice could not awaken him and gave up trying with a shrug of her shoulders, and motivated students losing interest after Respondent never called on them despite having their hands up for long periods of time. In all cases of misbehavior, Respondent imposed no consequences. During an observation on September 5, 1996, Respondent repeatedly asked the class what mountains look like. While she was doing so, one boy, who had been in and out of his seat for five minutes, managed to get the teacher’s manual off Respondent’s desk, give it to the observer, and tell the observer that this is where Respondent gets all her questions. At the same time, a girl, who was playing while in her seat, made two trips to the bathroom in 30 minutes, spending the second visit playing in the bathroom, turning the fan on and off. After teaching from August 20 through September 12, 1996, Respondent again went on medical leave. Dr. Griesinger hired a new teacher to take over the class. On October 3, 1996, Ms. Ashby sent a memorandum to the then-counsel for Petitioner advising him that Respondent’s classroom performance has continued to deteriorate and that he should review the file for proceeding with a predetermination hearing for “incompetency,” noting that Petitioner had given her notification last spring that she had “one year and six weeks to improve.” On October 21, 1996, Dr. Griesinger sent a letter to Respondent confirming their conversation of October 7 in which Respondent informed Dr. Griesinger that she would be taking the year off for medical reasons. The letter asks Respondent to call Dr. Griesinger prior to October 25 if this is incorrect. Respondent did not call Dr. Griesinger in response to the October 21 letter. Instead, a few days before Christmas vacation was to start, Respondent contacted Dr. Griesinger and told her that she would be returning to teach when school started again in January. Dr. Griesinger justifiably decided not to disturb the second grade class that the replacement teacher was handling quite well. Dr. Griesinger instead formed a new fourth grade class and assigned it to Respondent. Respondent began teaching the class on the first day of school after vacation, which was January 6, 1997. On January 9, 1997, Ms. Pottorf observed Respondent’s fourth grade social studies class. She found that the students were well-behaved and on-task for only about 10 minutes. The lesson was “disjointed,” and Respondent displayed an obvious unfamiliarity with the subject matter, as evidenced, for instance, by her inability to find a definition for “pioneer” in the text or her incorrect assumption that the Miami Indians were a tribe in Florida, not Ohio. She referred to the two or three students who had read the lesson as “her friends who knew the answers,” excluding the remainder of the class. Respondent failed to guide students’ responses, allowing the same answers and silly answers to continue. Unaware of the time, Respondent allowed the lesson to end without review or conclusion. The next class was reading. Respondent immediately lost the attention of the class by engaging in a discussion with a child about the seating arrangements. For no good reason, Respondent required the class to cover material that had been covered earlier in the week. She displayed a poor command of the reading material. For instance, telling the students that “errors” were to be called “challenges,” Respondent proceeded to use the words, “error” or “mistake” throughout the lesson, each time adding that “We are to call them challenges.” Randomly checking workbooks, Respondent failed to note which students had done their work and which had not. After a student was left without a reading partner, Respondent said she would be his partner, but she never returned to be his partner. When the students became loud and off-task, Respondent required them to call out the reading words in unison with her arm signals. She made them repeat words numerous times, to the obvious irritation of the students. After one child asked her not to do this, and, in response to Respondent’s inquiry, the rest of the class asked to be spared the repetition, Respondent agreed not to continue asking them to repeat the same word. But she continued to do so. At one point, she made them start over because they did not show enough energy, as the task became filler for the period, which ended without review or conclusion. On the same date, Ms. Bell did an observation of Respondent. She noted that the majority of the students were off-task. Respondent repeatedly tried to restore order by telling the students to look at the rules, but there were no rules posted anywhere in the classroom. On January 10, 1997, Respondent enlisted the students’ assistance in adopting classroom rules. A list of seven rules was disorganized, with some rules encompassing all of the others. The students became more restless when Respondent asked about consequences. No one answered her questions about consequences as the process became more disordered. Respondent evidently did not understand the point system that she had developed, leaving the whole system confusing and unmanageable. Later, a child privately asked to be Respondent’s helper. Respondent announced this request to the class, but did not otherwise acknowledge it. Respondent moved into a lesson on pronouns, but could not define a pronoun. Abruptly leaving this lesson after only three minutes, Respondent presented a new lesson on narrative writing, which she explained in one rambling sentence interspersed with frequent allusions to the rules and consequences that they had just worked out. Few students were on-task by this time. Respondent taught through February 6, 1997. At that time, Petitioner suspended her for her poor classroom performance. Respondent’s three major problems in the classroom were that she did not know her material, could not teach, and could not control the behavior of her students. She wasted time in transitions, such as to lunch, physical education, or taking attendance. She missed many opportunities to reinforce good behavior and frequently reinforced bad behavior by ignoring visible defiance or even unwittingly rewarding it. She confused students as often as she instructed them and displayed no idea of how she could explain content to her students. She sometimes displayed an uncertain grasp of even elementary materials. The result of these deficiencies is that Respondent impeded learning by repeatedly failing to communicate with and relate to the students to the point that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience. There is evidence of effective instances of teaching by Respondent. Undoubtedly, Respondent had some days that were better than others. However, Respondent’s performance as a teacher was so bad so often that she was ineffective and incompetent as a teacher. Numerous individuals observed her work in the classroom and found it seriously deficient. Ms. Ashby ultimately opined that, after a long career in education, Respondent, whom she described as a “horrible teacher,” was “one of the worst teachers I ever worked with.” Respondent tried to show at the hearing that her teaching problems were the result of her health problems. As already noted, the evidence shows that her teaching problems preceded the emergence of her health problems. However, even if the health problems preceded the teaching problems, Respondent, with the approval of her physician, returned to the classroom in January 1997 and performed abysmally. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that her health problems, or other mitigating factors, induced Respondent (and her physician) to decide that she could return to the classroom in January. The impact of her poor performance was dramatic, as the learning of her students slowed and even ended upon her return to the classroom. Respondent argues that Dr. Griesinger and others in the administration were biased against her for reasons that are unclear from the record. Although Dr. Griesinger decided by no later than January 1997 that Respondent was not going to be able to eliminate her performance deficiencies, this determination was supported by the record and was not indicative of bias. Dr. Griesinger’s determination did not distort her observations, which were corroborated by several other individuals. Respondent understandably draws support from Dr. Griesinger’s initial positive evaluation. This evaluation was more likely due to a combination of her carelessness and optimism, as she converted an evaluative instrument to a device designed to encourage and promote one of her classroom teachers. Most likely, Respondent was ill-suited to assume the responsibilities of a classroom teacher when she began teaching second grade in the fall of 1993, but may have initially escaped the serious problems that later befell her due to a combination of factors, such as the youth of her students, extraordinary effort of what was effectively a new teacher, and inattentiveness of the school administration.
Findings Of Fact Respondent began working for Petitioner School Board in 1960 as a teacher and has been so employed for approximately twenty years, with several breaks in service. At all times material hereto, Respondent has held Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 112370, Rank 1, covering the areas of elementary education, social studies, and junior college. During the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, Respondent worked as a social studies teacher at Cutler Ridge Junior High School. Prior to the 1981-82 school year, Respondent served as a CSI instructor for several years. CSI is the Center for Special Instruction and is an indoor suspension system. Students who have had difficulty in school, such as skipping classes and defiance of authority, are sent to the CSI room where they are isolated from their classmates to work on their regular school assignments. When Dr. John Moore became principal of Cutler Ridge Junior High School for the 1981-82 school year, he became aware that the CSI program needed to be strengthened. Parents, community leaders, and staff members of the school felt that the CSI program was not supportive of the disciplinary structure of the school, and teachers had been complaining about CSI. When Respondent was informally observed in the CSI room, the students "seemed to be having an extremely good time there . . . [,and] were running their own show, . . . [so] they liked going to CSI." The students were out of their seats, moving around at will, and some were walking in and out of the classroom. The room was noisy and in one instance in November 1979 the students were throwing a football around the room. When Dr. Moore reviewed the schedule for 1981-82, he saw that Respondent had a split schedule of part-time in CSI and part-time in social studies. He changed Respondent to a full-time social studies schedule, initially with four seventh-grade classes and one eighth-grade class. As a result of the suggestion of Respondent and another teacher, Dr. Moore merged the two teachers' schedules so that Dr. Sullivan ended up with a straight seventh- grade schedule. This would have reduced the amount of lesson planning required by Respondent and would have made his work load easier. Seventh-grade social studies is the simplest assignment Dr. Moore could have given a social studies teacher. During the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, a pattern could be discerned in Respondent's teaching. During each of those years, there was a relatively positive start with erratic performance during the first semester. By second semester, there was substantial disaster and a total lack of a learning environment. This erosion pattern was attributed to Respondent's teaching techniques. During the first semester of each year, Respondent had the students working at the lowest level of cognitive ability, i.e., memory work. Students became bored with that after a period of time. Respondent was not using feedback mechanisms to tell him what the students were understanding. Respondent did not teach in a logical sequence beginning with the first semester. These things led to frustration and boredom on the part of the students, and negative behavior became apparent. The negative behavior became resistive. This led to the erosion as above described. Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal James Marshall on November 16, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was unacceptable in preparation and planning because he had no lesson plans. He was rated unacceptable in classroom management because of the disorganization of his class. He was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the needs and abilities of his students and failed to provide opportunities for the students to express their ideas. He failed to give specific directions to the students and only used one technique of instruction, i.e., the lecture method. Mr. Marshall prescribed help for Respondent. He recommended that Respondent formulate good lesson plans according to the scope and sequence of the curriculum. A portion of the lesson plan should contain a procedure for the evaluation of the students. He recommended that Respondent praise the students and that Respondent try to obtain enough textbooks. If he could not, he should utilize duplicated materials. Mr. Marshall pointed out how Respondent could change the seats of his disruptive children and call the parents to see whether he could get some backup from them. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Assistant Principal Albert Villar on January 8, 1982. Respondent was found overall unacceptable and was rated unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, assessment techniques, teacher-student relationships, and professional responsibility. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the students were taking a test which was written on the chalkboard. The test was confusing to the students, and they were not certain as to what part of the test they were to take. Further, the test was not visible to the entire class. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because students walked in and out of the classroom, several students were talking during the test, and some were putting on makeup. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the students needed to answer questions with the textbook, and not all of the students had a textbook accessible to them. Respondent told the students to share, which is inappropriate because there would be a tendency to cheat on the examination. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not have a written copy of the test; therefore, it would be impossible for students who are absent to make up the test. There also should have been a copy of the test in the students' folders. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because the lack of textbooks led to a relationship which did not reflect equal recognition and respect for every individual. Mr. Villar made recommendations for improvement. He recommended that if Respondent wanted to use a chalkboard test, he should have a written copy in the students' folders, and he should enforce his classroom rules about students not talking during a test. Respondent's next formal observation was performed by the principal, Dr. John Moore, on January 27, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and professional responsibility. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the lesson he taught was not the lesson described on his lesson plan. The inadequate planning led to classroom management problems. Throughout the observation, the students were "off task, doing their own thing, talking to each other and so on." The students and Respondent were talking at the same time. Eight students were chewing gum, which is against school rules. Techniques of instruction were rated unacceptable because the students were no on task. Respondent was not getting the students involved in discussions or in expressing their ideas. He was not getting feedback from the students because the students were talking among themselves. With teacher-questioning techniques, Respondent could have gotten the students involved. He could have gotten them on task by giving them quizzes or handouts which could structure their learning. Instructions were given while the majority of the class was talking, and the students were not challenged. Respondent was rated unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because throughout the observations there were repeated examples of students' disrespect, students yelling out across the room, students talking back and refusing to follow instructions. There was no reaction by Respondent. The bulk of the students were not responding. Professional responsibility was marked unacceptable because at the beginning of the year, Respondent was directed to enforce his class rules and to establish an effective learning environment. This was a general disciplinary project for the whole school. Dr. Moore prescribed help for Respondent. He recommended that Respondent work with his department chairman to review grade level objectives and to be certain that his lesson plans reflected the Dade County Balanced Curriculum requirements. Dr. Moore also recommended that he meet with a fellow teacher to review how she prepared her lesson plans. Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent enforce his class rules and that instead of using an oral approach, Respondent should develop handouts for the students. This would give them some structure as to what they are going to do. He recommended having homework guidelines and using review quizzes. Respondent was next formally observed by Mr. Marshall on February 5, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable overall and was marked unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because while he had lesson plans, they were not done according to the sequence and pattern prescribed in the school. Respondent did not get the students to work right away at the beginning of the period and the students were not on task. Classroom management was rated unacceptable because Respondent had no control of the students. The students were doing what they wanted to do and were disrupting the class. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of his students. He was lecturing the students, and this technique did not allow the students to participate. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because the relationship was not a positive one: the students were not guided into a class discussion by Respondent; there was no relationship between Respondent and the students, and the students did not want to give information to the teacher. They just wanted to sit there. Mr. Marshall prescribed help for Respondent. He requested that Respondent make sure that each student participate in the learning activities. He recommended that Respondent duplicate the assignments so that there would be enough for all students to have and that Respondent guide the students in a discussion from his daily lesson plan. Respondent was next formally observed on February 16, 1982, by Phyllis Cohen, Area Line Director for the Dade County Public Schools. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. The instructions given to the class were not comprehensible. None of the things that were indicated in the lesson plan occurred. As a result, when the students were divided into three groups and told to read, without the appropriate directions, each group proceeded not to read. As the lesson progressed, the behavior deteriorated more and more until at the end of the lesson, three-quarters of the class was off task. There was an elaborate lesson plan, but it was not followed. Knowledge of the subject matter was rated unacceptable because the teacher did not demonstrate a knowledge of the content of the chapter while he was giving class directions. Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because his class management practices needed much improvement. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of the students. Further, he did not use instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because many of the students' papers were not graded, most of the work on file was work book papers consisting of mostly short answers and recall questions, and there were very few essays. Mrs. Cohen recommended help for Respondent. She directed him to develop lesson plans which are useful and which list key concepts, activities, questions and vocabulary. She directed him to work with the principal who would provide models for his use. She recommended that the department head arrange to have Respondent observe a master teacher presenting a civics lesson. She recommended that he observe teachers who exhibit good class control, that he become aware of what the students are doing, and that he review and enforce class standards for behavior. She recommended that he work with the assistant principal to improve class management techniques and that Respondent have a five-minute start-up activity on the board fro students to do when they enter the class in order to settle the class down, take attendance, and begin the lesson in a more orderly fashion. She also recommended that he improve his presentation strategies and teaching techniques by working with the social studies department head. The next formal observation was performed by Mr. Marshall on March 11, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because his lesson plans were not adequate, unacceptable in classroom management because there was still a problem with student control and participation, and unacceptable in techniques of instruction since he still was not adapting materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of the students and was not providing opportunities for the students to express their ideas. Mr. Marshall prepared a memo in which he listed teaching techniques that would help improve Respondent's teaching. He recommended that Respondent praise the students more. Respondent was next formally observed by the social studies supervisor for the Dade County Public Schools, Paul Hanson, on March 19, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, teacher- student relationships, and in one subcategory of preparation and planning because the plans which were written were not compatible with what actually took place in the classroom. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because there was no means of controlling the students who talked and moved about the classroom at will. The discipline was nonconducive to a learning environment since students were talking, out of their seats, and not on task. Very little learning was taking place. Techniques of instruction were marked unacceptable because the students were not motivated, and the instruction given them was not conducive to learning for junior high students. The activities in the classroom did not reflect the adoption of materials and methods to the interests, needs, and abilities of the students, and there was confusion in the class. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because the test which was observed did not equate with the instruction taking place, the test construction was very poor, and there were a number of grammatical errors on it. What was being tested was not compatible with what was being taught at the time, according to the lesson plan. The grades and records of the students' achievement were not up to date but rather were about two to three weeks behind. Therefore, the students' progress was not being monitored on a daily basis. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because of the behavior problem in the class. There seemed to be very little respect for the students on the part of the teacher, and it was difficult to determine who was in control of the class. Mr. Hanson recommended that the lesson plan be more specific and that it equate with what takes place in the classroom. He recommended that Respondent observe other teachers for their classroom management techniques and that a staff development course be taken. He also suggested that Respondent observe a master teacher for the techniques of instruction. Mr. Hanson provided some reading materials to Respondent dealing with such topics as how to conduct a classroom discussion, how to manage a social studies classroom, and how to use audiovisual films in a social studies classroom. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Dr. Moore on April 13, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, teacher- student relationships, professional responsibility, and supportive characteristics. There was no improvement in this observation over the prior observations. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the majority of students were off task during the observation, the written plan was not in compliance with the prior prescriptions and the lesson plan was not followed by Respondent. Knowledge of subject matter was marked unacceptable because Respondent failed to provide students with necessary explanations to implement the lesson plan. He confused the teaching objective with directions for student activity. Classroom management was marked unacceptable because the students were off task, were frequently moving, were constantly socializing, and a student was permitted to defy Respondent without consequences. Also, there were forty wads of paper on the floor. Techniques of instruction wee marked unacceptable because Respondent gave materials to the students prepared by the National Council of Social Studies for teacher use without modifying or adapting these materials for student use. He did not provide opportunities for students to express their ideas, although this was called for in his lesson plan, and he gave confusing directions to the students. The distribution of the National Council materials caused organization problems, and confusing directions used excessive class time. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not make an assessment of each student's academic progress. He gave the students credit based upon untested assertions of mastery of assignments. He asked the students to "Tell me if you know this . . . I'll mark it down and you can go on. . . ." Teacher-student relationships was rated unacceptable because defiant students regularly disregarded his direction to stop talking. Respondent was marked unacceptable in professional responsibility because he had failed to comply with directives regarding remediation practices. He was found unacceptable in supportive characteristics because it was found that he did not contribute to the total school program. Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent review prior directives on lesson planning and comply with those. He further recommended that Respondent review material with his department head and that Respondent implement the posted consequences for student behavior. Dr. Moore submitted a memorandum to Respondent outlining the problems that he saw in this observation and compiled a list of pertinent materials available in the media center. On April 16, 1982, Dr. Moore made Respondent aware of a parent complaint concerning the basis for a student's grade and the failure to notify the parent of the lack of student progress. As a result of that parent complaint, Dr. Moore reviewed Respondent's grade book and found a variety of deficiencies: There were grades that were not identified; there was no indication of makeup work, and the mechanics of keeping grades were absent. The grade book is a document which is required by law and by School Board rule. It is an attendance record and a primary record of the student's progress as compared to the course standards. Dr. Moore provided a memorandum to Respondent indicating what improvement was needed. Around the same time, Respondent became ill and was hospitalized. A series of memoranda were sent from the school to the Sullivans and vice versa. It was difficult to ascertain the nature of Respondent's illness and the expected length of his absence. Eventually it was determined that Respondent's illness was genuine, and he was given an opportunity to return to his school to complete his prescriptions. Respondent was next formally observed by Althea King, Assistant Principal, on October 18, 1982. This was the first formal evaluation under the TADS system. There is no overall rating on the individual TADS observation forms. This observation showed a great improvement over the prior observations. Prior to this observation, Mrs. King met with Respondent to go over the things she would be looking for and made an appointment with Respondent for her observation. Although Respondent sincerely desired to improve, he was found unacceptable in preparation and planning because his plan did not fill the allotted time. Mrs. King observed Respondent for one hour and found that there were 20 to 25 minutes remaining in the class period when the students had finished an activity and were not provided another activity. Mrs. King noted that preparation and planning is very significant because it is the means of gaining control of the classroom. She recommended that Respondent read certain sections of the teacher handbook and complete activities therein to help him develop a lesson plan that would have the various essential parts. The next formal observation was done by Dr. Moore on November 8, 1982. He found that Respondent's classroom management was above a minimally acceptable level. The class was noisy, but it was under control. There was, however, substantial deterioration in the other categories. Dr. Moore directed Respondent to give priority attention to the other five areas since progress had been made in classroom management. He further directed Respondent to outline the sequence of key concepts and generalizations for each unit and to discuss them with the department head to insure consistent comprehension. He directed Respondent to use inquiry strategies and to review a section in the faculty handbook to implement activities listed therein. He directed Respondent to list specific student objectives in behavioral terms in his lesson plans. The next formal observation was done by Dr. Moore on December 15, 1982. The observation, which was scheduled in advance, was relatively good. There was improvement in a number of areas over the preceding observation although Respondent was still not dealing with students who were off task, a fault which eventually leads to deterioration. Respondent was weak in using feedback mechanism. This is a shortcoming in teacher-student communication, indicating whether or not the teacher knows what the students are really perceiving and learning. In order to help Respondent, Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent read sections in the TADS prescription manual and attend Teacher Education Center workshops on teacher-student relationships and on assessment techniques. Shortly after the Christmas break, there was apparent deterioration of behavior in the classroom. There were reports from other teachers of loud, disruptive behavior. Respondent was directed to confer with Assistant Principal Daniel McPhaul and to make sure the students know that there will be consequences if they do not behave. Starting at this point, there was the same pattern of disruption that had been seen in the prior school year. Respondent was making no visible effort to restore order in his classroom. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Dr. Moore and Mr. Hanson jointly on February 8, 1983. Respondent was not found acceptable in any category. The class lesson consisted of giving workbooks to the students. There was no teaching, simply a passing out of materials. This failed to keep the students on task. There were consistent violations of the class rules and no consequences. Media still was not being used, and there were wads of paper on the wall. Respondent was marked unacceptable in preparation and planning because his lesson plan did not fill the allocated time. What was planned covered only 30 minutes of a 55-minute period. What was going on in the classroom did not follow the lesson plan, and what was being done was not included either in that lesson or the lesson plan for the next day. While Respondent exhibited knowledge of the subject matter, he was not found acceptable in the area of presentation of the subject matter. He used a "scattergun" approach. With the remaining 30 minutes, he filled in the time with something completely irrelevant to the plan for the day and irrelevant to the general overall plan for the week. The information presented to the children was simply handed to them with no logic or reason why they were getting this information. The information presented was not timely. Only one cognitive level was utilized in the entire classroom period, the lowest level-recall or remembering. No higher or challenging cognitive levels were presented, and the lesson was presented in an uninteresting manner. Classroom management was unacceptable because approximately two-thirds of the students were not on task, and the behavior was inappropriate for a classroom. This resulted in no learning taking place, and Respondent did not seem to make any attempt to correct the situation. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he gave a skills lesson which needed some demonstration. However, he simply gave the students materials and told them to do the work. He should have taken the time to give instructions and actually demonstrate what the students were to do. The activities that took place did not give the students an opportunity for participation and verbal interaction with Respondent. The students were not invited to raise questions and were not actively involved in the lesson. It was basically a teacher-directed lesson. The lesson that Respondent presented would have been an opportune one for using media, but Respondent chose not to do so. There was a great deal of confusion on the part of the learners -- they did not know what to do with the materials, and very little clarification took place. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not give the students more than a book-type exercise, which was not challenging, and only required students to recall basic information. This technique did not require them to actually think or apply the knowledge they learned. In the student folders, there was only one kind of evaluation, a dittoed workbook-type of page with mostly fill-in-the-blank type activities. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because there was not any mutual respect on the part of the students or teacher. Mr. Hanson found no improvement over his prior observation of March 19, 1982. Mr. Hanson prescribed help for Respondent, and Dr. Moore concurred with those prescriptions. It was recommended that Dr. Sullivan observe a master teacher at a school close to his and that Dr. Moore, a former social studies teacher, help in demonstrating some of the techniques needed in a social studies room. Mr. Hanson provided additional reading materials for Respondent. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Mrs. King and Mrs. Cohen on March 29, 1983. Mrs. Cohen found Respondent unacceptable in all categories, and Mrs. King found him unacceptable in all categories except teacher-student relationships. Mrs. King found that his lesson plan was much decreased in quality over her prior observation: the objectives did not reflect good planning, the activities did not fill the allotted time, and the plan was not followed. Because of these, she rated Respondent unacceptable in preparation and planning. Knowledge of the subject matter was rated unacceptable because the subject presentation was unacceptable. Information and activities were not timely and accurate, and the sequence of presentation was not logical. Interesting, unusual or important dimensions were not included, and different cognitive levels were not presented. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because many students were not on task, and behavior management was not done appropriately. Techniques of instruction was marked unacceptable because the materials that were used were inadequate for the lesson. Student participation was very minimal, and there was little, if any, discussion. Students were asked to work on information in their folders. Individual questions were asked and answered but there was no other kind of instruction taking place during the observation. Assessment techniques was marked unacceptable for there was no indication that assessment had taken place or would take place for this particular lesson. The students seemed vague as to what they were supposed to be doing. Teacher-student relationships was unacceptable because there was no attempt to involve all students in the instruction. Basically, there was no instruction. Mrs. Cohen found the same conditions that existed on her previous observation of February 16, 1982. While the method of teaching had changed, as worksheets were distributed and folders were given out, there was still no teaching occurring, there was lots of confusion, and there was little attempt to draw relationships. These things contributed to a lack of control and off task behavior. Mrs. King discussed with Respondent activities that he might use to direct the students, to establish and gain control of their behavior in the class. She recommended written assignments, discussions, and lectures, using a variety of activities that might help give direction to him and to the students in the classroom. The next formal observation was performed by Daniel McPhaul, Assistant Principal, on May 5, 1983. Mr. McPhaul found Respondent unacceptable in all categories except knowledge of subject matter. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because there were some items lacking from the lesson plans, and the lesson plan did not have objectives. Classroom management was unacceptable because there were many students who were not on task strewn about the classroom floor, the desks were out of order, and students were walking around communicating with each other while Respondent was giving instructions. Techniques of instruction was unacceptable because there was no student participation. His instructional strategies were limited. There was no use of media from the library, although some was available to him. Assessment techniques were unacceptable because the lesson ended with the ringing of the bell. There was no time allowed for assessment. He did not ask questions to see if the students understood the lesson and did not evaluate the students. Respondent was found unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because if the students were interested in receiving instructions from Respondent, they would not have been playing around and communicating with each other. Mr. McPhaul suggested that Respondent get the students on task as soon as possible. One way to do this is to have handouts or pop quizzes ready at the beginning of the class. He also suggested that Respondent communicate with parents. He suggested that the students be made to clean the classroom before leaving. On May 25, 1983, Dr. Moore dropped in to visit Respondent because of a teacher's complaint. When he got there, there were several students running out of the door. Respondent indicate that no lesson was in progress, and the students were running around because there was nothing to do. The next formal observation was performed by Dr. Moore on June 1, 1983. There was no improvement: the class was noisy and off task; the lesson did not match the lesson plan; the lesson was not attended to by most of the students; many students talked while Respondent gave instructions; and nineteen out of twenty students did not follow directions. Further, since Respondent was using an inappropriate teaching technique for a fact recall level lesson, five students did nothing, fourteen students wrote statements totally unrelated to the unit they were studying, and only one student wrote one question pertinent to the unit under study. Seven weeks into the nine-week grading period, there were no grades recorded in the grade book. Based on this there would be no way to know what a student had done or how well. There were no codes in the front of the grade book to interpret the grades. There was no basis to explain a child's grade to a parent. Dr. Moore gave Respondent copies of his summatives on or about November 12, 1982, December 17, 1982, February 10, 1983, April 11, 1983, and May 1, 1983. A summative combines the preceding two classroom observations and rates a teacher overall acceptable or unacceptable at any point in the process. All of Respondent's summatives were rated overall unacceptable. Respondent was offered help at other times as well. The assistant principal had conferences with parents of disruptive students. Mrs. Parker taught directly across the hall from Respondent and observed that at times students were completely out of control, with desks and books being thrown across the room. Respondent asked her for help, and she suggested methods of control. There was so much noise coming from Respondent's room that Mrs. Parker would put her stool in the doorway and sit there and control both her class and Respondent's class at the same time. Mrs. Griswold, Respondent's department head, taught across the hall from Respondent. At times she noted the chaos. Quite frequently the students would be talkative and on occasions they would be walking around. The noise interfered with her class to the point that she would have to close her door. She offered to help Respondent by meeting with him on several occasions to discuss lesson plans, methods of controlling students, and using different techniques. She gave him materials to help him. During the 1981-82 school year, she met frequently, on a weekly basis, to go over Respondent's lesson plans. During some time periods, Respondent's lesson plans were more than adequate; at other times, they were not adequate. During the 1981-82, Respondent was told by Dr. Moore to submit lesson plans to Mrs. Griswold. He did not always comply. When he did , Mrs. Griswold went over his lesson plans with him, checking to make sure that the materials that he was using were applicable to the students in his class. She checked to be sure he was following the course outline for social studies for seventh graders. She tried to aid him in any way she could to try to maintain discipline and control in his class. On January 28, 1982, Assistant Principal Marshall gave Respondent a memorandum which dealt with tips for teaching. Mr. Marshall then monitored Respondent with informal observations two to three times a week to see whether Respondent was utilizing the suggestions made to him. The assistant principals had to enter Respondent's room at numerous times to gain control of or restore order to the classroom. Fellow teacher Beverly Dunbar also went into Respondent's room to restore control to his class. She observed that the children were so noisy that her own students could not do their work. When she went into Respondent's room, almost all of the students in the room were out of their seats, throwing papers, books, and throwing over desks. Respondent was standing there, not saying anything to them. They were out of control. On February 5, 1982, Respondent's room was changed to the first floor so that he could be closer to the administrative offices and to relieve the classes which had been around Respondent's classroom. The assistant principals were directed to assist Respondent whenever needed to restore order to his class when it was out of control. The assistant principals removed youngsters from Respondent's classroom and offered to take others out. Mr. Villar had a conference with Respondent to set up classroom rules for him and offered suggestions on the use of a seating chart to take attendance quickly and to become familiar with where students were sitting and to notice patterns in behavior that may become disruptive. Mr. Villar tried several times to talk to Respondent about his problems, but Respondent was not responsive. Mr. Villar also suggested that Respondent observe teachers in their school and in other schools in the same academic areas. He also recommended that Mrs. Griswold assist Respondent on lesson plans, ordering materials, and making sure he had a complete set of classroom textbooks. Mrs. King had conferences with Respondent. She called these her "lay-it-on-the-line" conversations. These dealt with how to get control of the students and force them through classroom activities through discipline measures, to do what they are supposed to be doing. She gave very specific recommendations such as moving certain students and specific kinds of activities that would keep the students involved. One day she went into Respondent's class and began the class for him to show how it could be done and how students could be controlled through various methods. Dr. Moore invited Mr. Hanson, the social studies supervisor, to observe Respondent's class and make recommendations to help the situation. At one point, when the principal observed Respondent's class, the room was so noisy and the students were so off task that he suggested that Respondent work with the students regarding the necessity of self control and following directions. He further recommended that Respondent work with Assistant Principal Villar to arrange for any kind of backup he would need. Dr. Moore also gave education articles to Respondent to read. The principal followed through and arranged for observations of other teachers by Respondent. Respondent was given an opportunity to raise any questions that he had about the type of support he needed. He was given an opportunity to give the administration feedback of the things they were not doing that he would like them to do for him. Dr. Moore compiled a composite record of all the prescriptions that had been given to Respondent in order that Respondent could review them and did a demonstration lesson for Respondent as an example showing the use of techniques which were explained in the readings that were given to Respondent. In spite of all the help that was given, Respondent's class continued to interfere with other teachers' classes. Mr. May testified that the noise was so loud that his students could not hear him dictating a spelling test during a semester examination. Mr. May saw things thrown through the room, such as books, and saw students out of their chairs and totally out of control. He heard glass breaking and saw glass on the ledges of the second floor. He was also afraid that some child would go out a second floor window and recommended to Dr. Moore that Respondent's class be changed to the ground floor. There was no improvement in the control of Respondent's class after he was moved to the first floor. On the occasion that Mrs. Dunbar went up to gain control of Respondent's class, her students were prevented from doing their work by the noise coming from Respondent's room. Other teachers in Mrs. Dunbar's department complained to her, and teachers complained to the assistant principals about the noise in Respondent's room. During informal observations, Respondent fared no better than he did no his formal observations. His class was generally disorganized with 100% of the time being spent without teachings. When Mrs. Dunbar observed Respondent, he was not teaching. There was commotion going on. At times, clapping and chanting could be heard coming from Respondent's room across the courtyard. The administrators received more student and parent complaints about Respondent's class than they did about other teacher's classes. When Mrs. King walked by the halls, she would come in to help establish order in Respondent's class. Sometimes she would be sent for by Respondent or by a student or other teachers. Very often she notices that there was chaos in the classroom with students moving around without inhibition. They were talking, tossing paper, and off task. They were not involved in any kind of constructive classroom activity, and the noise level was very high. On Mrs. Cohen's informal visits to the school, she observed Dr. Moore going into Respondent's room to quiet it because someone had thrown paper outside the room. It was the consensus of opinion of the experts who observed Respondent in the classroom that there was a repeated failure on his part to communicate with and relate to the children in his classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience. Respondent has not maintained direction and discipline of students as assigned by the principal and has not kept good order in the classroom. He has not taken precautions to protect the life, health and safety of every student. On one occasion Mr. Marshall had to respond to the Respondent's classroom because of the presence of a railroad spike in the possession of one of the students. Because of the gravity of the situation, the parents of the student were contacted and additional documentation was forwarded to Dr. Moore. During the 1982-83 school year, Assistant Principal King walked by the Respondent's class and observed a student holding a chair up in the air "as if in the intent of throwing it at another student." Another time she observed a student on all fours crawling along a back counter. On those occasions Respondent was standing in the front of the class, simply observing and doing nothing to (re)gain control of the class. During the 1982-83 school year, on several occasions jalousie windows were broken in Respondent's classroom by students playing and bumping into each other. Some students complained to Assistant Principal McPhaul about the noise level and disorder in Respondent's class and the difficulty they had in doing their work due to harassment by other students who wanted to play during class. Overall, during the last two years of Respondent's service, in the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, Respondent failed to achieve an acceptable performance rating as determined by eight formal evaluations during the 1981-82 school year, done by five different evaluators, two of which were external to the work site. In the 1982-83 school year, Respondent failed to achieve an acceptable performance rating as noted on nine different formal evaluations conducted by six different evaluators, two of which were external to the school site. The administrators asked Respondent whether there were any health conditions or medical conditions which should be considered in his case. Respondent stated that health was not a factor in his classroom observations. Neither Respondent nor his wife ever communicated to the administrators that there was a health problem that interfered with Respondent's teaching. After his suspension by the School Board, Respondent was examined psychologically and was found to have an inability to organize his social events into a meaningful order. His perceptual abilities are significantly below his age level, and his functioning is significantly below what one would expect given Respondent's level of education and teaching experience. He has extreme difficulty in differentiating relevant versus nonrelevant aspects in his environment. His thinking is highly concrete, and he is unable to coordinate data and integrate them into meaningful concepts. Respondent is verbose and uses circular reasoning to eventually reach a final conclusion. Respondent's examining psychologist determined that it would be difficult for Respondent to learn new techniques for getting a class into order, it would be difficult for him to learn new ways of doing lesson plans in order to structure his classroom activities, he would have a hard time working in a school organization where he had to perceive social situations and what is going on in a classroom, he would have a difficult time dealing with teachers, administrators, and students, and he would have a hard time perceiving the motives of the administration. His perceptions are vague and amorphous, and descriptive in nature. He has inordinate difficulties in capturing the essence of what was presented to him. While there is no evidence of thought disorder, his thinking is vague, disorganized, fuzzy, and reflective of an individual with possible organic factors interfering with his thinking and organizational abilities.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in Case No. 83-2649 finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Specific Notice of Charges filed against him, affirming his suspension, dismissing him from his employment, and denying him any claim for back pay. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in Case No. 83-3793 finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and permanently revoking Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 112370. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 George F. Knox, Esquire Penthouse 200 Southeast First Street Miami, Florida 33129 Donald Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER (DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD) ================================================================= SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-2649 WILLIAM D. SULLIVAN, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The 1978-79 school year is respondent's sixth year as a music teacher in petitioner's employ. She attained continuing contract status in 1975-76. Since she has worked for petitioner, she has divided her time between two elementary schools. Joseph Charles Galocy, S. Edward Williams, Jr., and Albertha C. Arrington, all principals under whom respondent has worked, have found her attendance and her performance as a whole satisfactory. In the fall of 1978, she was assigned to Nathan Young and, for the first time, to Primary C. When she reported to Nathan Young at the beginning of the 1978 fall term, she spoke to Albertha C. Arrington, principal of Nathan Young, about her schedule for the upcoming school year. Ms. Arrington telephoned Dr. Charlie Williams, principal of Primary C, to discuss respondent's schedule. In the course of this telephone conversation, Dr. Williams "had a temper tantrum," yelled at Ms. Arrington and called her stupid. Ms. Arrington hung up but tried again another day; on her third attempt, Dr. Williams said something to the effect that he did not care what respondent's schedule was. Ms. Arrington then decided that respondent should teach Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at Nathan Young and Tuesdays and Thursdays at Primary C. On her way to school on Tuesday, August 29, 1978, respondent had car trouble. She called Primary C and told a secretary, Mrs. Moss, that she was stranded and would not be in. The following Tuesday, September 5, 1978, respondent called Primary C and told another secretary, Mrs. Olliff, that she was staying out because of illness. She had severe stomach pains that day and went to see a physician for advice. On September 26, 1978, respondent was unable to keep food down and again visited a physician's office instead of meeting her classes. Respondent was absent from Primary C on Thursday, September 20, 1978, and on the following Thursday, October 3, 1978. On both days she was ill and asked her physician to prescribe medication. From the beginning of the school year through October 3, 1978, respondent missed only one day's work at Nathan Young. In the opinion of Dr. Charles C. James, respondent's absences from Primary C, in the fall of 1978, were medically necessary. While she was working at Primary C, respondent felt harassed by Dr. Williams, the principal. He told her that the piano was too loud; that she should use the record player instead. When she used the record player, he told her to use the piano. He followed her down the hall. Respondent was tense and anxious; and became upset that she was not allowed to teach the way she had taught the five preceding years. Dr. Williams was in and out of her classroom, interrupting her in mid-sentence and in mid-song. He ordered her out of classes she was conducting, leaving classes unattended. On October 4, 1978, respondent went to see Dr. Dulin, an administrator who has charge of music instruction for petitioner. She complained to Dr. Dulin that Dr. Charlie Williams had caused such disruption of her classes and made working conditions at Primary C so unpleasant that she became physically ill at the prospect of reporting for work there, and she asked for a transfer. Dr. Dulin introduced respondent to Dr. Everett D. Abney, employed by petitioner as superintendent of the area in which Primary C is located. Respondent explained her position to the area superintendent, who told her he would look into the matter, but that she should continue reporting to Primary C in the interim. The following day, a Thursday, respondent appeared for work at Primary C. While she was teaching her first class, Dr. Williams walked into the classroom and told her to cancel her classes for the day so that she could write lesson plans. On October 10, 1978, the following Tuesday, Dr. Williams interrupted respondent's first class and asked her to come talk to him about lesson plans. He told respondent be wanted very little singing; that the children should instead be taught how to read notes and to appreciate the works of the masters. Respondent undertook to implement these instructions by playing Bach for her pupils and by playing tones which she asked the children to characterize as short or long. On Thursday, October 12, 1978, Dr. Williams interrupted respondent's classes on three separate occasions, once to tell her he did not like the song she was singing, another time to direct her to use different songs for different classes. The next Tuesday, October 17, 1978, respondent had stomach pains, diarrhea and spastic colitis; and she was throwing up. She telephoned Primary C to say she was not coming in and also called Dr. Abney's office. On Tuesday, October 24, 1978, and again on Thursday, October 26, 1978, respondent was ill, and telephoned Primary C to report that she was not coming in. On October 26, 1978, after she had called in sick, Dr. Williams called respondent and told her not to come back to Primary C. On November 2, 1978, respondent conferred with Eldridge Williams, an administrator in petitioner's employ, about her work situation. She did not meet her classes that day. At the conclusion of their conversation, Eldridge Williams told her he would be in touch with her. Since he had not communicated with her by November 9, 1978, respondent telephoned him. She understood him to tell her not to report to Primary C, so she began putting in extra time at Nathan Young. Respondent is not the only teacher who found working under Charlie Williams, the principal at Primary C, difficult. Ms. Jessie Sandilands, an elementary school teacher for 22 years, sought and obtained a transfer from Primary C, after repeated confrontations with Charlie Williams. Ms. Elizabeth Wallace, an elementary school teacher, found working under Charlie Williams' principalship "unbearable" and obtained a transfer to another school on December 12, 1978. During the fall of 1978, the policy at Primary C concerning teachers' absences on account of illness or for other unforeseen reasons required the teacher to telephone a secretary at the school to report the illness or other cause for the impending absence. Every time respondent was absent from Primary C before November 2, 1978, she complied with this policy by telephoning either the night before or early on the day of the absence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner reinstate respondent and pay her the wages she would have earned if she had not been suspended. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of May, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Building Suite 300-E 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Elizabeth J. du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower 21 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate the professional service contract with Respondent on the grounds of immorality, gross insubordination and neglect of duties, and misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board pursuant to a professional service contract. He is certified to teach Elementary Education, grades K through 6. He began his employment with the School Board on October 10, 1983, and he was assigned at different times pertinent to this proceeding to Broadmoor Elementary School (Broadmoor), Allapattah Elementary School (Allapattah), Touissant L'Ouverture Elementary School (L'Ouverture), or an alternative assignment. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Dade County, Florida. On April 3, 1989, while carrying out his duties as a teacher at Broadmoor, Respondent was involved in an incident with an eight year old third grade female student. The School Board initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent that were subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings where it was assigned DOAH Case No. 89-3358. Following a formal hearing in DOAH Case No. 89-3358, a Recommended Order was entered which found Respondent guilty of misconduct in office and recommended that his employment be suspended without pay for ten days. The School Board adopted the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order as its Final Order on March 21, 1990. The Hearing Officer found that the Respondent and the child had accidentally fallen to the ground while the Respondent was using an inappropriate technique to restrain the child. The Hearing Officer further found that the Respondent had pushed the child back to the ground when she tried to stand after the fall. As a result of this incident, the student suffered scrapes on her face and a swollen lip. Pertinent to this proceeding, the Recommended Order contained the following statement, which may properly be considered to be a warning to the Respondent: ". . . a 250 pound man must demonstrate more caution and restraint in handling a third grade student." The School Board adopted this warning as a part of its Final Order and the warning served as a directive to the Respondent. The Hearing Officer in DOAH Case No. 89-3358 further found that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired as a result of that incident. As a result of the incident involved in DOAH Case 89-3358, the Commissioner of Education and Respondent entered into a "Deferred Prosecution Agreement," to be implemented through the end of the 1990-91 school year. Respondent was directed to complete a college course in conflict resolutions, complete a college course in behavior management, to comply with all Board rules, State Board of Education rules and to perform his duties in a professional manner satisfactory to the Board and in compliance with the rules of the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS), through Dr. Joyce Annunziata, monitored the implementation of this agreement. On March 21, 1990, the School Board entered its Final Order in DOAH Case No. 89-3358. Subsequent to that date, the Respondent was assigned to teach at Allapattah. Respondent reported to work at Allapattah on March 23, 1990. He was given a faculty handbook and verbal directions concerning school procedures. The substitute teacher who had been assigned to the class previously, offered to update Respondent on each student, but Respondent rejected the help. On April 4, 1990, Respondent, who is six feet tall and weighs approximately 250 pounds, towered over a small male student and yelled loudly at the student for chewing gum. He forced the student to stand in front of his class with his mouth open and pockets out. On April 23, 1990, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by his principal, Mr. Jones. Using the Board's Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS), Mr. Jones rated Respondent unsatisfactory in preparation and planning and classroom management. Respondent's lesson plans were incomplete and lacked the required components. Respondent's students were off task and not paying attention when Mr. Jones observed the class. On April 27, 1990, a conference for the record was held involving Respondent, Dr. Annunziata, Mr. Jones, and one other administrator. As conditions of his employment, Respondent was directed to participate in assertive discipline training and to undertake coursework through the Teacher Education Center (TEC) in classroom management, disciplinary techniques and skills for improving student behavior. Respondent was prescribed help to improve his deficiencies. He was instructed to write lesson plans and review those plans with the grade level chairperson. Respondent was told to update his assertive discipline plan and to intervene quickly when off task or disruptive behavior occurred. He was instructed to read the TADS Prescription Manual for additional techniques and strategies to improvement classroom management. On April 27, 1990, the school counselor met with Respondent to review and reinforce assertive discipline techniques and to offer support and assistance. On May 3, 1990, Respondent visited two fifth grade classes to observe classroom management techniques. On May 8, 1990, Felipe Garza, a teacher and grade chairperson at Allapattah, heard a disturbance in Respondent's classroom and entered the classroom. A group of students had locked another student in a closet in the rear of Respondent's classroom. Respondent had told the students to let the student out of the closet, but his instruction had been ignored. Respondent remained seated at his desk and took no further action to release the student from the closet. It appeared to Mr. Garza that Respondent had no interest in restoring order to his classroom or in releasing the student from the closet. Because of Respondent's prior discipline by the School Board, he was reluctant to physically remove the student from the closet. Mr. Garza asked another student to let the child out of the closet and took steps to restore order to the classroom. Thereafter Mr. Jones, the principal, entered Respondent's classroom and order was immediately restored. Two students had actually been locked in the closet, but the other student had been let out of the closet before Mr. Garza came into the classroom. While neither student was placed in danger by being locked in the closet, it is clear that Respondent failed to maintain control over his classroom. Instead of using appropriate disciplinary techniques to restore order to his class, Respondent elected to take no action. Following the incident on May 8, 1990, Mr. Jones referred Respondent to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The referral form indicated that the observed behavior causing the referral involved altercations with students and Respondent's exercise of poor judgment. Mr. Jones testified at the formal hearing that he had observed Respondent shouting at students, pulling and grabbing students, and hitting students. Respondent's students were disruptive, out of control, and running in the hallway. The students had been throwing objects, such as rubber bands, spitballs, and paperclips. Mr. Jones stated the following in his request for an evaluation of the Respondent: Please consider our request for a medical fitness determination on John Ackley, a fifth grade teacher at Allapattah Elementary School. Because of several incidents involving disruptive behavior and an atmosphere not conducive to our students's learning, we fear for the safety of our students. The classroom instructional program has suffered because of the off-task behavior of students and the inability of the teacher to redirect this behavior. On June 20, 1990, a conference for the record was held with Respondent to address the incident of the students being locked in the closet. While the incident was being investigated, Respondent was placed on alternate assignment in the region office without student contact for approximately six weeks. On July 18, 1990, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand from Mr. Jones for allowing the two students to remain locked in the closet and for refusing to remove the students from the closet. Respondent was directed to maintain control and discipline of his students. He was directed to immediately implement appropriate procedures for insuring safety. He was "directed to refrain from using inappropriate procedures in dealing with inappropriate classroom behavior of students". He was directed to follow professional ethics and School Board rules. He was put on notice that any recurrence would result in additional disciplinary action. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1989-90 school year was overall unacceptable and was unacceptable in professional responsibility. He was rated unacceptable for failure to comply with school site rules and policies and for failure to perform assigned professional duties. He was directed to read the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Ethics Code) and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education in Florida (Professional Conduct Principles) and to delineate a written plan on ethics and how they would apply in his classroom daily. He was to review the staff hand book section on classroom discipline procedures. His salary was frozen at the previous year's level. At Allapattah Respondent was unable to control the students in his classroom, which resulted in an atmosphere that was dangerous to students' learning and safety. His lack of control was the result of poor planning, an inability to communicate with the students, and the failure to use appropriate disciplinary techniques. For the 1990-91 school year, and thereafter, Respondent was assigned to L'Ouverture where he was assigned to teach a "classroom indoor suspension" class. The "classroom indoor suspension" class consisted of students who had been disruptive of other classes and who could not be controlled by other teachers using ordinary means. 1/ On January 15, 1993, James Maisonnerve, a fourth grade student at L'Ouverture, was fighting and hitting other students in the cafeteria. James often caused trouble at school and his mother had difficulty disciplining him at home. Respondent, who was on duty at the cafeteria, forced James to sit down next to him and restrained James by placing James' arm under his (Respondent's) leg. James tried to escape from the Respondent and, in the process, twisted his arm. James was injured as a result of this incident and he experienced pain. When James came home from school, his mother observed that his hand was swollen and called the police. A fire-rescue unit was called and he was taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital where x-rays revealed no fracture. His arm was swollen and had to be bandaged. Petitioner alleged that Respondent twisted James's arm, causing the injury. It is found that the injury occurred when James tried to free himself from this restraint and that Respondent did not intentionally twist James's arm. It is further found that the technique used by Respondent to restrain James was inappropriate. Keyota Ragin was a fourth grade student at L'Ouverture during the 1992-93 school year and was, at the time pertinent to this proceeding, approximately three feet six inches tall and weighed approximately 60 pounds. Keyota frequently caused trouble. Keyota testified Respondent had, on May 25, 1993, grabbed her by her arm and pushed her into the line so that her jaw hit another boy's head. Keyota also testified that when she stepped out of line again and laughed, Respondent hit her with his fist on the top of her head. Keyota testified that her injuries hurt and caused her to cry. Keyota further testified that when she returned to Respondent's classroom, Respondent grabbed her by the arm and put her in the corner and that he later grabbed her by the hair and pulled her across the room to her seat. Keyota's face was swollen when she arrived at home after school, and her mother called the police. Respondent testified that Keyota was hit in the face by a fellow student named James. Respondent denied that he pushed Keyota into another student, that he struck her, that he grabbed her, or that he pulled her hair. Respondent's denial is just as credible as Keyota's version of the incident. Consequently, it is found that Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent pushed, struck, grabbed, or pulled the hair of Keyota. While this incident was being investigated, Respondent was placed on alternative assignment for one month and was out of contact with students. For the entire semester, he only worked in a classroom for six weeks. Wendy Steiner, a friend and fellow teacher of the Respondent at L'Ouverture, observed Respondent forcing students to stand with their arms outstretched while holding books and she also observed Respondent restraining students by leaning against them. These are inappropriate disciplinary techniques. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1992-93 school year was overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the category of professional responsibility. Respondent was found deficient because he failed to comply with Board policy and rules regarding corporal punishment and employee conduct and because he violated the labor contract provisions concerning student discipline and instructional planning. He was also found deficient in following the Ethics Code and the Professional Conduct Principles. He was found deficient in compliance with site directives concerning the use of physical means to effect discipline and maintaining a safe learning environment for students. He was given a prescription to help him over come his deficiencies. During the last three years of employment, Respondent has spent approximately one year at alternate assignments, without student contact, pending investigations. He received his full teacher's salary during those alternate assignments. The Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the Dade County School System has been impaired by his continued use of inappropriate disciplinary techniques and his service to the School Board has been unproductive. Respondent has exercised poor judgment after repeated efforts to train him in the use of appropriate disciplinary techniques. Respondent's rough handling of students has received notoriety in the school and in the community. His conduct has reflected poorly on himself and on the school system. The Board has also adopted School Board Rule 6Gxl3-5D-l.08 which provides teachers the authority to direct and discipline students and requires teachers to keep good order in the classroom and in other places in which responsibility for students is assigned. The Board has also adopted School Board Rule 6Gxl3-5D-l.07 which prohibits the corporal punishment of students. On November 3, 1993, the School Board suspended Respondent's employment without pay and initiated these dismissal proceedings against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida issue a Final Order which adopts the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained herein and which sustains the suspension without pay of John N. Ackley and which terminates his professional service contract with the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 1994.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has sufficient just cause to terminate Respondent, Jacqueline Skinner ("Skinner"), for multiple unapproved absences from work.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented and the record as a whole, the undersigned makes the following Findings of Fact: Parties' Stipulated Facts At all times pertinent, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a bookkeeper at Central Elementary School. Respondent's supervisor during the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 school years was Joseph G. Stanley, principal of Central Elementary School. Respondent's supervisor during the 2019-20 school year was Cynthia Kubit, principal of Central Elementary School. At all times pertinent, Christina Norman was an assistant principal at Central Elementary School. At all times pertinent, Ken Kenworthy was superintendent of Okeechobee County Schools. The annual noninstructional employee evaluations of Respondent from the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years showed that Respondent needed improvement in attendance. Pet. Ex. 1. Respondent failed to report for work on June 7, 2019, without arranging for leave in advance and without notifying her immediate supervisor. Principal Joseph G. Stanley issued a letter to Respondent dated June 14, 2019, confirming a verbal reprimand; Respondent acknowledged receipt of said letter. Pet. Ex. 2. Respondent failed to report for work on October 29, 2019, without arranging for leave in advance and without notifying her immediate supervisor. Principal Cynthia Kubit issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent dated October 30, 2019; Respondent acknowledged receipt of said letter. Pet. Ex. 3. During February 2020, Respondent continued to have incidents regarding leave and, by letter dated February 20, 2020, Principal Cynthia Kubit recommended disciplinary action against Respondent; Respondent acknowledged receipt of said letter. Pet. Ex. 4. On May 15, 2020, Respondent failed to report to work without arranging for leave in advance and without notifying her immediate supervisor. Principal Cynthia Kubit, in the presence of Assistant Principal Christina Norman, called Respondent several times and issued a memorandum of the telephone conversations. Pet. Ex. 6. Principal Cynthia Kubit issued a letter to Superintendent Ken Kenworthy dated May 18, 2020, recommending that Respondent be terminated; Respondent acknowledged receipt of a copy of said letter. Pet. Ex. 7. By letter dated May 18, 2020, to Respondent, Superintendent Ken Kenworthy informed Respondent that he was recommending to the Board that Respondent's employment be terminated. The letter was hand delivered to Respondent by Assistant Principal Dylan Tedders and Respondent acknowledged receipt of a copy of said letter. Pet. Ex. 8. At all times pertinent, School Board Policy 6.213--Notification of Absence--was in effect. Pet. Ex. 9. At all times pertinent, School Board Policy 6.20--Leave of Absence-- was in full force and effect. Pet. Ex. 10. At all times pertinent, School Board Policy 6.52--Suspension and Dismissal--was in full force and effect. Pet. Ex. 11. At all times pertinent, School Board Policy 6.45--Alcohol and Drug Free Workplace--was in full force and effect. Other Facts Established by the Evidence Skinner was employed pursuant to the Okeechobee County School Board Classified Personnel Contract for the 2019-20 School Year on a continuing basis. Pet. Ex. 18. An employee who has completed the probationary period may be dismissed under the Classified Personnel Contract for just cause. Pet. Ex. 18, p. 15. Pursuant to the Classified Personnel Contract, under Public Employer Rights, "[i]t is the right of the Board to direct its employees, to take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work and other legitimate reasons…." Pet. Ex. 18, p. 5. Pursuant to the Classified Personnel Contract, the Board is required to follow progressive discipline, the progression of which is as follows: "documented verbal warning; written reprimand following a meeting; suspension; termination." Pet. Ex. 18, p. 13. It was largely undisputed, as acknowledged in the Joint Pre-hearing Statement-Amended, filed September 1, 2020, that Skinner had attendance problems the past several years of her employment, which escalated in the last year of her employment. According to her supervisor, Kubit, Skinner's attendance problems started immediately when Kubit became principal in July 2019 and continued throughout the last year of Skinner's employment. During her last year of employment, from the time period July 1, 2019, through May 14, 2020, Skinner accumulated numerous absences from work. During her last year of employment, Skinner used more leave than she had allocated. This put her leave bank in the negative. Pet. Ex. 19. This was not the first time Skinner used more leave than she had accrued. Her prior supervisor, Dr. Stanley, testified that Skinner would run out of available sick days and then would have to take unpaid leave. During her last year of employment, Skinner failed to attend work approximately ten days and failed to arrange for advance leave with her supervisor. Pet. Ex. 12. Providing advance notice of an absence could have been accomplished by Skinner by calling, texting, or e-mailing her supervisor any time prior to the start of the work day, even a few minutes before. On some of the days when Skinner failed to attend work, arrange for leave, or notify her supervisor, her supervisor, Kubit, nonetheless tried to assist Skinner by not disciplining her for failure to attend work without notice. For instance, Kubit sometimes allowed Skinner to use vacation days when she ran out of sick days even though employees are normally required to arrange for vacation leave days in advance. Kubit did so because she wanted Skinner to come back and work more regularly. Kubit thought it would help Skinner to do so. According to Kubit, Skinner did not provide legitimate excuses for her unauthorized absences. Instead, she just repeatedly apologized and promised to improve her attendance in the future. Skinner candidly acknowledged during her testimony that she had attendance problems and that she had received multiple disciplinary letters for her problems with attendance. Annual Performance Evaluations As part of her employment, Skinner received annual employee evaluations. Pet. Ex. 1. Her attendance problems over time were documented and verified in her annual employee evaluations. Pet. Ex. 1. More specifically, Skinner's last four annual employee evaluations evaluated her on six main categories of performance, one of which was Attendance. This category evaluated the following performance attribute: "Complies with policies and procedures regarding usage of time and leave; [m]aintains scheduled work and break times; [r]eports absences for emergencies and illnesses, and requests leave, in a timely manner." Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 1-4. In each of her last three annual employee evaluations, Skinner was rated as "Needs Improvement" for Attendance. Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 2-4. On each of the last four annual employee evaluations, Skinner also received written comments from her supervisor about her attendance. These comments were consistent and pointed out that Skinner needed to improve attendance and work to comply with attendance policies. Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 1-4. Each annual performance evaluation was discussed with Skinner and she signed each. Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 1-4. School Board Attendance Policies and Requirements The Board's policies established and outlined general guidelines and expectations for work attendance. Employees were generally expected to attend work as scheduled unless they had arranged for advance leave. See generally, Pet. Ex. 10. Employees who were absent from duty for any reason were required to notify their supervisor as early as possible. Notification of an absence had to be given in advance unless conditions beyond the control of the employee made advance notice impossible. Pet. Ex. 9. The Classified Personnel Contract governing Skinner and other employees similarly provided that employees were required to arrange for advance leave for vacation and to notify their supervisor prior to the start of the work day if they were taking sick leave. Pet. Ex. 18, pp. 33 and 34. The School Bookkeeper Job Description, which applied to Skinner, required her to follow attendance, punctuality, and other qualities of an appropriate work ethic. Pet. Ex. 13, line 11. Skinner's significant and frequent attendance problems caused her to fall short of these policy, contract, and job description requirements. History of Attendance Problems The witnesses confirmed that Skinner violated the attendance policies on a frequent basis for several years. Regrettably, her attendance problems became most acute in her last year. This eventually lead to a recommendation for her termination in her last year of employment. The parties acknowledged in their Joint Pre-hearing Statement- Amended, that Skinner received all required stages of progressive discipline for her attendance problems. This included a verbal warning, a written reprimand, and a suspension, finally resulting in a recommendation by the Superintendent that her employment be terminated. Skinner's supervisors also discussed and counseled her on her attendance problems several times throughout the years, both informally and formally. In the disciplinary letters, Skinner was informed that, in the event of recurrence, she would be subjected to further discipline including a recommendation for termination. Pet. Exs. 2-3. More specifically, in the disciplinary letter from the Superintendent dated March 3, 2020, Skinner was informed that: "It is expected that there be no further occurrence of such behavior. If it continues, your position with the Okeechobee County School Board will be terminated." Pet. Ex. 5, p. 1. In this disciplinary letter, Skinner received numerous attachments including copies of the Board Policy 6.213, entitled "Notification of Absence and the Employee Assistance Plan." Skinner signed and acknowledged receiving the disciplinary letters for her attendance problems, and agreed that they put her on notice that her attendance shortcomings were a problem. Skinner also received negative employee evaluations on her attendance for the past three years, which were discussed and signed by her. Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 2-4. It was clear to the undersigned that Skinner received full, fair, and adequate notice of her attendance problem for several years. Unfortunately, she was unable to correct it after multiple warnings, corrective action, and progressive discipline. Termination Authority Superintendent Ken Kenworthy is responsible for determining and recommending whether an employee should be terminated for violation of Board policies or rules. Pet. Ex. 11. The Superintendent is only entitled to discipline and terminate the employment of an administrative employee on a continuing contract for "just cause." Pet. Ex. 18, p. 15. The Superintendent testified that he takes many factors into consideration when determining whether just cause exists for termination. He looks at the reasonableness of the Board's rules, whether the employee was informed of the rules, and whether the disciplinary action taken is proportionate to the infraction. The undersigned finds that this process is fair, and provides adequate due process to affected employees of the District. The Superintendent ensures that progressive discipline has been followed when taking an action against an employee's employment. See generally, Pet. Ex. 8. In this case, all the stages of progressive discipline from informal conversations and memoranda of conference through the formal disciplinary stages of verbal reprimand, written reprimand, suspension, and recommendation for termination were followed. The Board's rules on employee attendance are reasonable and necessary to ensure the proper functioning and operation of the school district. Several witnesses and the Superintendent testified that proper and regular attendance was a "critical" and "essential function" of an employee's job performance. Skinner's supervisors, Kubit and Dr. Stanley, both testified that notification of absences when an employee cannot attend work is "critical." Several Board witnesses provided testimony showing the hardship that Skinner's absences created for Central Elementary School. For instance, Dr. Stanley expressed his view that it was a hardship for Central Elementary School when Skinner was absent, especially at the last minute, because others had to cover her job. This left the school short staffed in other areas. Likewise, according to Kubit, it was especially difficult when Skinner was absent because other people had to perform her duties, but according to rules and regulations most people were not authorized to handle money. According to Assistant Principal Norman, when Skinner was absent from work, money would have to be kept at the school even though it is supposed to be promptly deposited. This was true because only Skinner could verify the money for a deposit. This violated bookkeeping rules about depositing money, and was unsafe when large sums of money were left undeposited at a school. Skinner was advised on numerous occasions and by different people that her repeated and unauthorized absences without notification were creating difficulty for the functioning of Central Elementary School. Not only did Skinner leave the school short staffed, but she had a tendency to do so when her presence was most needed. The witnesses concurred that Skinner's repeated absences tended to follow a pattern. For example, if Central Elementary School was at a busy time of year or an event occurred that required additional bookkeeping, like a fundraising event, Skinner often would not come to work and did not arrange for leave or call in. This left the school in a difficult predicament. Aside from her leaving the school short staffed, Skinner's work absences also had a negative effect on her job performance. Several Board witnesses testified, for example, that Skinner's work performance started to decline. This was caused by Skinner's work getting backed up and not completed on time because of her absences. This became particularly evident after her suspension when other employees came in to review her unfinished work and sort out the bookkeeping at Central Elementary School. During this review, several problems were noticed. Skinner acknowledged knowing that her problem with unauthorized absences was having a negative effect on Central Elementary School. During the hearing, Skinner admitted that her struggle with alcohol misuse caused or contributed to her attendance problems. According to her supervisor, Dr. Stanley, Skinner never provided alcoholism as an excuse for her absences. Instead, Skinner would make the excuse that she slept in or just did not get up to come to work. According to her supervisor, Kubit, Skinner did not offer or mention problems with alcohol as an excuse for her unauthorized absences. Instead, she regularly apologized and promised to improve her attendance in the future. Not only did Skinner not reveal to her supervisors that alcoholism was a reason for her absence problem, Skinner never sought assistance or accommodation for her struggle with alcohol prior to the Superintendent's recommendation for termination. The Board provides employees struggling with medical or other problems assistance through its Employee Assistance Program. It also provides leave for medical problems though the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). Pet. Ex. 18, p. 32. Skinner was provided a copy of the Employee Assistance Plan when she was suspended for three days in March 2020, prior to the Superintendent's recommendation for termination of her employment two months later. Pet. Ex. 5, p. 2. However, despite her awareness of the assistance offered in March 2020, Skinner never used the Employee Assistance Plan or FMLA leave to try and save her job or correct her underlying problem prior to being terminated. While the evidence revealed that an employee suffering from an alcohol problem had an opportunity to seek treatment while still employed, this treatment was permitted when their employment was active and in good stead--not after the employee was suspended and dismissal of employment was in progress. Further, Skinner testified that she had been an alcoholic her "whole life" and it had progressively gotten worse in the last four years. Regrettably, there was no medical documentation or other evidence provided in advance for the Board to verify her problem with alcohol. But, at the end of the day, and to be clear, this was Skinner's illness and it was her responsibility to seek help and take advantage of programs the Board offered.2 2 The undersigned reasonably infers from the evidence and record that Skinner knew or should have known about the Employee Assistance Plan many months, if not years, before her termination. Sadly, however, she did not take advantage of the program. Turning directly to the matter at hand, the allegations of the Superintendent's termination letter were limited to her attendance problems. While problems with alcohol may have existed or accounted for her absences, the crux of this case concerns Skinner's attendance problem. Other violations or performance deficiencies related to Skinner's problems with alcohol or related performance issues were not alleged as a basis to terminate her. Those related problems provide some background and context to the attendance issue at hand, but they are not being considered by the undersigned as directly affecting the outcome of this case. Added to that, despite later discovering Skinner's problems with alcohol and how this affected her attendance, the Superintendent did not amend his recommendation for termination of employment to include abuse of alcohol or other related work performance issues. Superintendent Kenworthy felt that Skinner's chronic and disruptive workplace absences alone merited termination of employment. In his view, no other violations needed to be cited since Skinner was not meeting his attendance expectations. Based on the greater weight of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the Board had sufficient just cause to terminate Skinner for repeated and chronic attendance problems.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Okeechobee County School Board enter a Final Order terminating Jacqueline Skinner's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 303 Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed) Thomas L. Johnson, Esquire Law Office of Thomas Johnson, P.A. 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 309 Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed) Thomas W. Conely, Esquire Conely & Conely, P.A. Post Office Box 1367 Okeechobee, Florida 34973 (eServed) Molly Lauren Shaddock, Esquire Sniffen and Spellman 605 North Olive Avenue, 2nd Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Ken Kenworthy, Superintendent Okeechobee School Board 700 Southwest 2nd Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 34974 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint Respondent has been employed by the School Board of Broward County, Florida, as a teacher on continuing contract at Crystal Lake Middle School. Notice of the final hearing was sent to Respondent on January 4, 1983 to her address at 5225 North Dixie Highway, Ford Lauderdale, Florida 33334. The Notice of Hearing which was sent from the Division of Administrative Hearings was not returned as undelivered by the United States Postal Service. The record does not reflect that Respondent made any attempt to contact either counsel for the Petitioner or the Hearing Officer concerning a continuance of these proceedings or providing any explanation for her failure to appear at the final hearing. On May 15, 1980 Ms. Belcher failed to report for work as a classroom teacher without advance notice to the administration of Crystal Lake Middle School as required by school policy. She was absent the entire day and her failure to appear caused considerable administrative difficulty in securing a replacement teacher without prior notification. Her principal at that time, Ms. Jean Webster, sent a memorandum to Ms. Belcher which stated the following: On Thursday, May 15, 1980, you were absent from your job and failed to report that you were going to be absent either to your department head or to me. This is less than responsible action on your part and will be considered an act of insubordination should it happen again. This memo may be considered a written reprimand and will be placed in your personnel folder. The memorandum was received and acknowledged by Ms. Belcher. On October 14, 1982 Respondent was absent from her teaching assignment without leave. She failed to give any prior notice of her absence to the school principal or any other supervisor as required by school policy. The absence of Ms. Belcher was not discovered until one of her students went to another teacher's room to report that Ms. Belcher's unattended students were misbehaving and throwing objects at each other. As a result of the second unauthorized leave of absence without prior notice, her new principal, Mr. Thomas J. Geismar recommended to the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel that Ms. Belcher's contract of employment be terminated. Mr. Geismar's decision to request Ms. Belcher's termination was influenced by her prior conduct on September 23, 1980 when she was discovered by a member of the administration to be falling asleep in front of her class during a regularly scheduled class period. During that time her students were out of control. They made disparaging remarks about Ms. Belcher appearing to be either high or on drugs. The incident was reported to Mr. Geismar who, upon interviewing Ms. Belcher, determined that she was either intoxicated or drugged and was in no condition to teach a class of middle school students. At the time Ms. Belcher attributed her condition to having taken cold medicine. She was sent home in order to recover from whatever was affecting her. On numerous instances, Ms. Belcher fell asleep while on duty in front of her students during the school year 1981-1982. When Ms. Belcher fell asleep her unsupervised students became boisterous and threw things at each other. Prior to falling asleep Ms. Belcher frequently received a back and neck rub from one of her students. After Ms. Belcher's last absence without leave or prior notice on October 14, 1982, it appears that the administration at Crystal Lake Middle School solicited negative comments about Ms. Belcher's teaching behavior. This inference is raised by four letters all dated October 19, 1982 addressed to Mr. Geismar from respectively, J. Kay Betzoldt, Jo Nell Stevenson, Jan Mascia and Walter S. Tilgham. The most serious incident about Ms. Belcher's behavior was raised by Ms. Betzoldt. During fifth period in the last quarter in the 1981-1982 school year, Ms. Betzoldt saw Ms. Belcher in front of her class receiving a "back rub" from one of Ms. Belcher's students. The student was observed standing behind Ms. Belcher reaching forward massaging her breasts. It appeared that Ms. Belcher was not aware of what was happening. When the student realized that Ms. Betzoldt was observing him, he moved his hands to the shoulders of Ms. Belcher. Ms. Betzoldt did not report the incident to the school administration until her letter of October 19, 1982. The contents of the other teachers' letters dated October 19, 1982, were corroborated by the authors' live testimony at the final hearing. They support the allegations against Respondent that on numerous occasions she has slept in the presence of her students when she should have been teaching them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a Final Order dismissing Ms. Saundra Belcher as a continuing contract teacher and cancelling her contract of employment. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William S. Cross, Esquire 4540 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Saundra Belcher 5225 North Dixie Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 William T. McFatter Superintendent of Schools Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest 4th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Donald J. Samuels, Chairman School Hoard of Broward County 1320 Southwest 4th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a veteran teacher should be dismissed for having drawn and displayed a kitchen knife while quieting a noisy class.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Lynn Deering ("Deering") had been a teacher for about 34 years. She holds a certificate to teach in Florida. During the 2004-05 school year, Deering was employed as a science teacher at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, which is a public school in Broward County. For reasons that will soon be apparent, it is pertinent to note that Deering contracted polio at a young age and as an adult has suffered from post-polio syndrome. As a result of these illnesses, Deering's upper-body is weak, the range of motion of her upper extremities is limited, and she has little grip strength in her right hand, which is dominant. Since 1985, Deering has been confined to a wheelchair.1 The incident giving rise to this case occurred on March 2, 2005. When the bell rang that day to start Deering's sixth period anatomy and physiology class, the students were excited and talkative. As was her practice, Deering raised her hand to signal that she was ready to begin teaching; this gesture usually quieted the class. This time, however, the students continued to talk, and the classroom was noisy——too noisy for Deering to be heard. So Deering, who was sitting (in her wheelchair) in front of a demonstration table located at the head of the classroom, hitched up her right shoulder, reached back behind her body, and grabbed a utensil from the top of the table. She then used the utensil to tap on a glass beaker——which was filled with water and flowers——to get the students' attention. The "utensil" in question happened to be a knife. It was a chef's knife,2 bearing the Chefmate™ brand on its blade. Measured from butt to point, the knife was approximately 10 and one-half inches long. From heel to point, the blade was roughly five and three-quarters inches in length; it was no wider than about three-quarters of an inch from edge to spine. The knife was in Deering's classroom at the time because she had been using it to slice flowers and potatoes for demonstrations in her biology class.3 Upon hearing the distinctive "tap, tap, tap" of blade on beaker, most of the students stopped talking. Some in the back of the room, however, perhaps being out of earshot, continued to converse. Two were especially oblivious. Presently, Deering wheeled over to their lab table, still holding the knife in her right hand, between her thumb and fingers. When she reached the students' table, Deering turned the knife over in her hand, so that the point was down and the edge faced away from the students (toward Deering herself). Deering leaned over the table, in front of the where the two students were sitting, raised the knife an inch or two above a couple of sheets of paper that were lying on the tabletop, and, loosening her grip, let gravity pull the knife down between her fingers.4 Driven by the knife's own weight, the point punched through the papers, leaving small slits in them, and scratched the surface of the tabletop. Now gripping the knife's handle more tightly (for had she let go the knife would have fallen), Deering said, "Hello!"——which she pronounced "Heh-LOW!"——"Do I have your attention?" She did. The students stopped talking. Some were startled or frightened; others were amused or nonplussed. None, however, reacted as one might when facing a genuine threat of harm, e.g. by screaming or fleeing. As she returned to the front of the classroom, Deering joked, "Don't mess with a postmenopausal woman . . . with a knife!" This was meant to be humorous and was not uttered in a threatening tone of voice. Following this incident, Deering taught her lesson as usual, and the class unfolded in routine fashion. Her use of the knife, in other words, produced no discernible immediate fallout. At least a few students, however, were sufficiently upset by Deering's conduct to report the matter to the administration, and they did.5 The students' report not only set in motion an internal investigation, but also prompted the administration to call the police. Somehow, as well, the incident rapidly made its way into the local news. At least one local TV station aired a brief, 35-second story on the incident, which was short on facts, long on sensationalism, and notably unbalanced, in that Deering's side was not shown. The undersigned cannot comment on the contents or accuracy of other media reports, for they are not in evidence. In due course, the Broward County Sheriff's Office commenced an investigation that brought forth a criminal charge against Deering, who found herself accused of having improperly exhibited a dangerous weapon. The crime of improper exhibition, which is a misdemeanor, is defined in Section 790.10, Florida Statutes, as follows: If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self- defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree[.] Deering ultimately pleaded no contest to the criminal charge and was sentenced by the county court to three months' probation and a $30 fine. Meantime, the School Board decided that Deering should be fired, voting at its regular meeting on August 2, 2005, to accept the superintendent's recommendation that she be suspended without pay pending termination of employment. Following her suspension, Deering accepted a teaching position at the Upper Room Christian Academy, where she was working as a science and math teacher at the time of the final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order (a) rescinding its previous decision to suspend Deering without pay pending dismissal and (b) awarding Deering the back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the administrative proceedings, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2006.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent for 15 days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a social studies teacher at Palmetto Middle School (“Palmetto”), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”). The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on March 18, 2014, during the 2013-2014 school year. On March 18, 2014, Respondent was co-teaching a seventh grade social studies class with Vivian Taylor. Ms. Taylor is another social studies teacher at Palmetto. K.W. was a female student in the class. At that time, K.W. was approximately five feet tall and weighed ninety pounds. Prior to March 18, 2014, K.W. sat in an assigned seat in the back of the classroom of the social studies class co- taught by Respondent and Ms. Taylor. On March 17, 2014, K.W. displayed disruptive behavior in the classroom. On March 18, 2014, as the bell rang to signal that class was about to begin, K.W. and other students entered Respondent’s and Ms. Taylor’s classroom. When K.W. entered the classroom on March 18, 2014, Respondent instructed K.W. that she could not sit at her seat in the back of the classroom, and that she needed to sit at a desk in the front of the classroom. Instead of walking toward her newly assigned seat in the front of the classroom, K.W. disregarded Respondent’s instructions and attempted to walk in the opposite direction toward her prior assigned seat in the back of the classroom. Respondent then stood in the aisle, stepped in front of K.W., and “blocked” her “path” toward the seat in the back of the classroom. Respondent blocked K.W.’s path in an attempt to re-direct her to her newly assigned seat in the front of the classroom. In his effort to block K.W.’s path of travel and re-direct her to her newly assigned seat in the front of the classroom, Respondent and K.W. made very slight physical contact with each other. The physical contact between Respondent and K.W. was minor, inadvertent, and lasted no more than one second. At hearing, Respondent denied that he ever made physical contact with K.W. Ms. Taylor, the only other purported eye-witness to the incident, who testified at the hearing on behalf of the School Board, was asked by the School Board’s counsel to describe whether Respondent and K.W. ever made physical contact. In response, Ms. Taylor testified: It was just their chest, just the top body, because Mr. Chandra-Das is a bit taller than her, so when he stepped up, that’s what touched. Ms. Taylor described the physical contact between Respondent and K.W. as very slight--“it was just a touch,” it lasted “[a] second, half a second.” After Respondent blocked K.W.’s path, K.W. stepped back and put her head down. Ms. Taylor testified that K.W. was visibly upset and crying. Ms. Taylor immediately told K.W. to leave the room and go directly to the assistant principal’s office. Respondent’s supervisor, Principal Lux, acknowledged at the final hearing that there is no written directive or School Board policy which forbids a teacher from blocking the path of a student. Principal Lux further testified that he has never “disciplined a teacher in the past for blocking the path of students and not letting the student go wherever they want,” and that he is unaware of any circumstance in his 15 years with the School Board in which the School Board has disciplined an employee for blocking the path of a student. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that there was, at most, very slight physical contact between K.W. and Respondent as Respondent attempted to block K.W.’s path of travel and re-direct her to her newly assigned seat in the front of the classroom. Respondent did not intend to make physical contact with K.W., and the physical contact between Respondent and K.W. was minor, inadvertent, and lasted no more than one second. The evidence does not establish that Respondent pressed his body against K.W., as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges.2/ At no time did Respondent grab, push, shove, punch or place his hands on K.W. in any way. Respondent was justified and acted in an appropriate manner in blocking K.W.’s path in the manner that he did, which was in an effort to re-direct K.W. to her newly assigned seat. On March 20, 2014, Respondent was advised of an investigation with regard to the March 18, 2014, incident involving K.W. On that date, Respondent was specifically advised by his supervisor, Principal Lux, in a letter: You are prohibited from contacting any complainant(s) and/or witness(es), with the intent to interfere with the investigation of the above listed allegation(s). Subsequent to Respondent’s receipt of this directive, Respondent contacted Ms. Taylor and advised her that he was the subject of an investigation regarding the March 18, 2014, incident involving K.W. Respondent showed Ms. Taylor the letter, but he did not attempt to influence her in any way. Respondent did not violate the directive of Principal Lux, because Respondent did not contact Ms. Taylor “with the intent to interfere with the investigation.” In sum, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s conduct with regard to the incident in the classroom on March 18, 2014, involving K.W. constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of School Board policies. In sum, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent violated Principal Lux’s directive not to contact any witnesses “with the intent to interfere with the investigation.” Accordingly, the School Board failed to prove that Respondent’s communications with Ms. Taylor constitutes gross insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order rescinding the 15-day suspension of Respondent with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Teresa Wimmer, violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Code of Ethics), or 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (Principles of Professional Conduct), as alleged in the Hernando County School Board’s March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination, and March 24, 2015, modification of that notice; and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Hernando County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent has been a teacher at Pine Grove for roughly 11 years. During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was a teacher of first-grade students, with a class of approximately 18 students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2014-2015 Staff Handbook. Among the provisions applicable to Respondent was the following: TOUCHING STUDENTS Employees are advised that they should not touch students in any way except for the protection of the health, safety and/or welfare of a student or for protection of themselves. Respondent has been the subject of several disciplinary proceedings over the years. In September 2004, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for grabbing a student’s arm on two occasions to correct misbehaviors, the result of which appeared to be a reprimand. The report of the employee conference was to remain in the school file for one year. In January 2006, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for making derogatory comments regarding a student and allowing classmates to do the same. Respondent was required to re-read the Code of Ethics and Professional Practice forms and write a letter of apology to the student and parents. The employee conference report closed with “[a]ny further behaviors involving embarrassment to students will result in further disciplinary action.” In September 2013, Respondent was involved in an incident that is of more direct relevance to this proceeding. In that instance, Respondent was accused of roughly handling students in her classroom. As a result, she was offered, and accepted, a Stipulation for Employee Discipline and Last Chance Agreement (Stipulation). In the Stipulation, Respondent acknowledged that she “engaged in misconduct by having inappropriate and unprofessional interactions with students in her classroom” and that such conduct “warrants disciplinary action up to and including termination.” In lieu of termination, the School Board and Respondent agreed that she would be suspended for ten days and, thereafter, serve a probationary period for the remainder of the 2013-2014 school year. The Stipulation further provided that Respondent “agrees that she will not engage in the conduct which gave rise to this Stipulation at any time or any place so long as she is an employee of the Hernando County School District. Further, [Respondent] understands that if she does engage in misconduct, it will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” Respondent successfully completed the terms of her probation without incident. School principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, and persons in similar duties are trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI), which is an approved method of restraining or transporting completely out-of-control students or removing children from the classroom. CPI training is not provided as a matter of course to classroom teachers. Respondent has not received CPI training. Holding a student’s hand is not a CPI hold. There is nothing inherently inappropriate with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. The 2014-2015 Staff Handbook provides, in the section entitled “Return of Students to Classroom (Authority of the Teacher),” that: Teachers should follow their school’s procedure for the removal of students who are acting out. Suggestions include: having an adult accompany the student from the class or requesting an administrator to come to the class. (emphasis added). The routine procedure for removal of a disruptive or unruly student from the classroom is for the classroom teacher to call the office, whereupon Ms. Johnson, Ms. Kasten, or a guidance counselor, each of whom are trained in CPI, would go to the room, try to calm the student, and, if warranted, take the student to the office. Despite the procedure described above, Ms. Kasten testified that teachers, on occasion, “would bring the student down for me to talk to or the guidance counselor to talk to.” In such instances, “[t]hey would just walk them down” to the office. Although the teacher would usually call the office first, the evidence did not support a finding that a call was required or necessary, or that it happened in each event. Although the timing of those other events of taking students to the office was described as generally occurring “during their planning period or whatever, if they were at specials or whatever,” the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the act of walking a student to the office, per se, does not constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook and that the school has not previously determined it to be so. Among the reasons for having teachers call the office for assistance with disruptive students is to limit those periods in which a teacher may leave students unattended or, as in this case, leave a co-teacher responsible for up to 36 students while the disruptive student was walked to the office. However, Ms. Tyree testified that there have been times when she would ask Respondent to “keep an eye on [her] class” while she went to attend to other things, and vice versa. There was no suggestion that asking a co-teacher to watch over a class was improper, as long as “your class is covered.” In the weeks prior to February 4, 2015, J.S., a student in Respondent’s classroom, had become increasingly disruptive in the classroom. The behaviors ranged from J.S. talking in “baby-talk” and rolling crayons on his desk, to choking another student with a lanyard. Respondent did not know why J.S.’s behavior had spiraled out of control, but indicated to Ms. Kasten that it was creating a problem for her ability not only to teach J.S., but to teach the other students in her classroom. The office was called on three occasions to deal with J.S., and Ms. Kasten went to the class to address the situations. On two occasions, J.S. remained in the classroom after Ms. Kasten’s intervention. On one occasion, Ms. Kasten removed J.S. from the classroom. On the occasion when Ms. Kasten removed him from Respondent’s classroom, J.S. was walking around the room and disturbing the other students. Ms. Kasten could not get J.S. to listen to her. Thus, she decided to take J.S. to the office. She did not employ her CPI training or use a CPI hold, but took him by the hand “with the idea of keeping him from getting away.” During the walk to the office, J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away.1/ There was no suggestion that the actions of Ms. Kasten in taking J.S. by the hand and walking him to the office were inappropriate or contrary to the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. On the afternoon of February 3, 2015, Ms. Kasten met with Respondent to discuss the behavior of J.S. in her classroom. Respondent was upset and frustrated with J.S.’s unruly behavior and wanted to know what could be done about it. Ms. Kasten suggested that the two of them could work to develop a behavior plan for J.S. and indicated that she would bring a plan to Respondent the next day for them to work on. The incident that forms the basis of this proceeding occurred on February 4, 2015. As students were entering the class for the day, Respondent heard screaming and the words “stop hitting me.” She turned and saw J.S. striking a female student with his fists. Respondent was able to verbally quell the disturbance. However, after initially returning to his seat, J.S. went to the back of the room where he began kicking table legs and other items. Respondent asserted that prior to her taking the student to the office, she called Ms. Kasten to advise her that she would be doing so and received permission from Ms. Kasten. Ms. Kasten had no recollection of having received any such call. The telephone records admitted at the hearing do not reflect that any calls were placed between Respondent’s line and the office.2/ There was no evidence to support a finding that the telephone records maintained by the school were unreliable. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent did not receive prior approval before taking the student to the office on the morning of February 4, 2015. However, the issue of whether Respondent received or did not receive permission to take J.S. to the office, and whether the act of doing so violated any school policy, was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On her way out of the classroom with J.S., Respondent passed through the classroom of her co-teacher, Ms. Tyree, with whom she shared a paired classroom, and stated to her something to the effect of “[c]an you watch my class? They told me to take [J.S.] to the office.” Although not a frequent occurrence, it was not unusual for Respondent and Ms. Tyree, as paired teachers, to watch one another’s classes while the other was out for short periods. In this case, Respondent’s class was covered while she walked J.S. to the office. Respondent took J.S. by the hand and tucked his arm inside her arm. Although J.S. did not want to go to the office, his resistance was described by Ms. Tyree as “verbal like ‘I don't want to go, I don't want to go.’ But there wasn't a, like, a tug of war going on there.” Respondent indicated that she took J.S. by the hand in order to keep him safe. Given J.S.’s actions of physically assaulting a fellow student, followed by continued physical agitation at the back of the room, Respondent’s concern for safety, not only for J.S., but for the other students in her charge, was warranted. The walk to the office was captured by the school’s video system. The video covered the time from 8:33:00 to 8:33:58. Respondent and J.S. are clearly visible in the video for approximately 30 seconds, from frame 08:33:04 to frame 08:33:32. The video is somewhat grainy, and certain details are not readily observable. However, the video is consistent with Respondent’s statement that she was holding J.S. by the hand. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Respondent was holding J.S. by the hand as she walked with him to the office and not by the “wrist area,” as surmised by Ms. Johnson. At frames 08:33:12 and 08:33:13, J.S. appears to briefly resist Respondent’s efforts to take him to the office by trying to remove his hand from Respondent’s hand as they walked side-by-side. Despite his resistance, Respondent was not “pulling/dragging” J.S. during those frames. At frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19, J.S. appears to briefly pull away from Respondent. The action was that of J.S., not of Respondent. Respondent did not release J.S., but neither did she pull or drag J.S. The action at frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19 is entirely consistent with that described by Ms. Kasten when giving the account of her earlier walk to the office with J.S. -- which did not involve a CPI hold -- when J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away. Despite J.S.’s efforts to pull away in both instances, neither Respondent nor Ms. Kasten was “pulling/dragging” J.S. during their walks to the office. For the remainder of the walk to the office, Respondent and J.S. walked side-by-side at a consistent pace. The evidence suggests that J.S. was vocal in his reluctance to be taken to the office, consistent with the description of his verbal resistance when being taken from the classroom as described by Ms. Tyree. The verbal resistance apparently continued, as evidenced by the reaction of the boy using the walker, who comes into the picture at frame 08:33:22. However, J.S.’s verbal protestations did not involve pulling or dragging and do not form the basis of a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. Respondent’s actions, though firm, did not appear to be aggressive. They were consistent with the description offered by Ms. Tyree, who testified that, as to the Respondent’s walk through her classroom, “there wasn't an altercation of, like, dragging or, you know -- it wasn't -- she was walking, he was walking. But he wasn't happy, you could tell that he didn't want to.” As Respondent entered the office with J.S., Ms. Kasten, the elementary assistant, was in the office, though on the other side of the office. Respondent approached the office with J.S. The door to the office opens out. It occasionally slams, and Ms. Kasten has seen it slam on students. In order to ensure J.S.’s safety, Respondent placed both of her hands on his arms to move him through the door and into the office. Respondent yelled for Ms. Kasten to “take him.” Ms. Kasten observed that Respondent was trying to get J.S. into the doorway to someone who could help. Although Respondent’s calls for Ms. Kasten to take J.S. were loud, her tone of voice was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. Upon their entry into the office, Ms. Kasten went over to Respondent and J.S. J.S. stopped resisting once he saw Ms. Kasten. There was no evidence that J.S. was physically harmed in any way, i.e., there were no bruises, scratches, or marks of any kind. Respondent indicated to Ms. Kasten that J.S. had come to class very angry and was physically fighting with his female cousin. Ms. Kasten’s contemporaneous statement of the incident indicated that J.S. was “very upset that he had a fight with his sister.”3/ There was no suggestion that J.S. was upset about his walk to the office with Respondent. Ms. Kasten took J.S. off to the side and talked with him. After J.S. calmed down, Ms. Kasten advised Respondent that she would handle the situation from there, and Respondent left the office. J.S. was ultimately kept in the in-school suspension room for an hour or two. Ms. Kasten reported the incident to Ms. Johnson, who was not in her office or out front and did not witness the event. Shortly thereafter, in a conversation regarding other matters, Ms. Johnson reported to Ms. Martin at the District office that Respondent “brought a student in yelling and dragging.” Ms. Johnson was instructed to immediately remove Respondent from student contact. Ms. Johnson called to Respondent’s classroom and left a message with Respondent that she needed to speak with her. The following day, a meeting was convened to discuss the incident. Present at the meeting were Ms. Johnson, Respondent, and Respondent’s union representative. The confidential secretary to the school principal, Mr. Deen, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During her February 5, 2015, interview regarding the incident, Respondent indicated that “I was keeping him safe. I was holding his hand at first and he was okay. Then he started pulling away from me and I wanted to make sure he didn't hurt himself.” Her statement is consistent with the video. During the meeting, Respondent remained adamant that she had called Ms. Kasten and received the instruction to bring J.S. to the office. In conjunction with the investigation of the incident by Petitioner, Ms. Johnson reported the incident to the Department of Children and Families. The School Board received nothing from the Department of Children and Families to suggest that it found wrongdoing on the part of Respondent. Ms. Johnson believed, based on the information conveyed to her, that there was no reason for Respondent to remove the disruptive student from the classroom and that such action did not follow the protocol for the school for the removal of an unruly student. The alleged breach of protocol involved in taking the child to the office was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On February 18, 2015, Respondent was advised of the opportunity for a pre-determination meeting to be held the following week. Respondent took advantage of the opportunity. The pre-determination meeting was held on February 25, 2015. In attendance were Respondent, Ms. Martin, labor counsel Tom Gonzales, Ms. Johnson, and Joann Hartage, who appeared to be representing Respondent. Ms. Martin’s secretary, Sherrie Kudla, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During the pre-determination meeting, Respondent gave her account of the incident and was questioned, primarily by Ms. Martin. In addition to questions regarding the walk to the office, Ms. Martin asked about interviews of Respondent’s students undertaken by Ms. Johnson, which Ms. Martin found to be “very concerning.” Among the issues raised by Ms. Martin was “their perception [] that you yell and get aggravated with students and that you’re mean to [J.S.].” Although Respondent stated that she had read the statements, she was not involved in the interviews, and had no opportunity to ascertain the accuracy of the statements. More to the point, whether Respondent yelled or was a mean teacher was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. At the conclusion of the pre-determination meeting, Ms. Martin conferred with the school superintendent, and the decision was made to recommend to the School Board that Respondent be terminated from employment. By letter dated March 9, 2015, Respondent was advised that, as a result of her “pulling/dragging a student to the front office,” the District determined that she had violated rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), rules 6A-10.81(3)(a) and (3)(e), and the School Board Policy/Staff Handbook; that she was suspended with pay; and that she had the right to appeal the recommendation of termination. On March 23, 2015, Respondent appealed the recommendation of termination. By letter dated March 24, 2015, Respondent was notified that the recommendation to the School Board would be modified to one of suspension without pay, effective April 22, 2015, and referral of her appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the April 21, 2015, meeting of the School Board, the School Board authorized that this case be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whereupon this case ensued. Ultimate Findings of Fact Based upon the facts as set forth herein, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in an incident of “pulling/dragging a student to the front office.” The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent walked J.S. to the office and, despite J.S.’s verbal protestations and brief efforts to resist, did so in a safe and effective manner. Any “pulling” was brief and on the part of J.S., not on the part of Respondent. There was no “dragging.” The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a teacher’s act of walking an unruly or disruptive student to the office is not, in and of itself, a violation of any applicable procedure or standard and has not been determined to be so in the past. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that there is nothing inherently inappropriate or improper with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. Issues of whether Respondent received telephonic approval to take J.S. to the office, should have left Ms. Tyree to watch her class, spoke to Ms. Kasten in a loud voice, or was loud or mean with her students were not pled as bases for Respondent’s termination, and, thus, cannot form the basis for any disciplinary sanction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Hernando County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing the March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination; reinstating Respondent to a position equivalent to that previously held with the Hernando County School Board; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or collective bargaining agreement that authorizes back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful termination/suspension without pay, Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to discipline Respondent based on allegations that she used inappropriate language when talking to students in violation of the Code of Ethics and/or the Principles of Professional Conduct, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees for public schools within Duval County. In addition to the regular K-12 classes, the School Board has created the Bridge for Success program. The Bridge operates at eight sites within the Duval County school system. One of those sites is Ribault High School (“Ribault”). The Bridge is a new program, created to assist students who have fallen behind their chronologically-aged peers due to academic or other problems. The program is an innovative approach aimed at helping students who have fallen behind catch up with their peers and graduate from high school at about the same time as others of their same age. Many of the students in the Bridge program have behavioral issues as well as academic struggles. They can be a difficult group of students to teach. The goal of the Bridge program is “to promote and graduate” those students, to improve their attendance, and to teach them how to function as students. At its inception, there were 864 students in the program, distributed among the eight campuses. There were 108 students assigned to Ribault. By the end of the first school year, only 75 to 80 students remained in the program at Ribault. Some students had dropped out of school, some had moved to a different school, and it was difficult midway through the school year to replace those who had left. At all times relevant hereto, Quiller was a math teacher in the Bridge program at the Ribault location. She was hired for that position just prior to the 2013-2014 school year, the final year of the Bridge program. She had been teaching in the Duval County school system as a mathematics teacher for 21 years. Quiller is a graduate of Ribault and has very strong ties to the school. Quiller was chosen as a teacher for the Bridge program for many reasons: she was a graduate of Ribault and held a special place in her heart for the school and its students; she was certified in grades six through 12 for math, a less than common certification; she had a master’s degree in Guidance, giving her a better background and training for facing the Bridge students; she had been previously assigned to an alternative school for behavioral problem students; and, she demonstrated the kind of caring personality necessary for the challenges of teaching such students. When Quiller was hired, she mistakenly thought her position would be in the area of guidance. However, she was hired to teach math, partly in recognition of her status as a certified teacher in that area. She was hired to teach several math classes in the Bridge program, including Algebra I and II, Math for College, and Geometry. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, the Bridge was not entirely ready for implementation at Ribault. There was a shortage of books and other materials and the program had not yet filled all the required staff positions. The start- up of the program was a challenge for both the teachers and school administrators. Also, the students in the Bridge program were not always cooperative or interested in school. No one denies that it was a difficult situation for all involved. Despite the lack of materials and adequate staff, Quiller’s classes began relatively well. She was a very strict teacher, demanding participation by all students regardless of their level of interest. She expected and required each student to be fully prepared when they entered the classroom. For example, the students were expected to have pen/pencil and paper, to have their homework completed, and to be ready for class. She was, however, very frustrated at times because many of the students seemed to ignore the fact that they were being given a second chance. They continued to demonstrate the kind of behavior that caused them to fall behind in the first place. As a result of their behaviors, many of the students in her classes were failing. Most of the students who testified at final hearing were in agreement that the classroom was fairly unruly, but agreed that Quiller was a stern disciplinarian and reacted promptly to quell any disruptions. Conversely, one student said the class was always quiet and that Quiller would make anyone making noise leave the classroom. Principal Davis began getting some complaints about Quiller beginning in September 2013, a month or so after commencement of the school year. The first complaints were relayed to her from assistant principal Micheau. During the first pep rally of the year (in late August), Micheau had been sitting with a group of students who were being disciplined and therefore, could not attend the rally. The students brought up unsolicited complaints about Quiller, saying that Quiller had used profanity towards her students. Micheau relayed these allegations to Principal Davis and Davis instructed Micheau to meet with Quiller and remind her that such language was not acceptable. Micheau met with Quiller and attempted to explain-- without being accusatory--that it was improper to use such language in front of students. Quiller denied ever having used inappropriate language with students; Micheau took Quiller at her word at that time. Sometime later, Micheau heard loud talking emanating from Quiller’s classroom area. When she investigated, she saw Quiller standing in the hallway next to her room. She was yelling loudly at a student and was obviously very upset. Micheau attempted to call her over and calm her down, calling out her name over and over, “Ms. Quiller. Ms. Quiller. Ms. Quiller.” Quiller yelled at Micheau to reprimand the student rather than her, saying, “You [Micheau] need to talk to these damn kids!” Micheau, shocked at Quiller’s language and her anger, removed the student from the classroom, and went back to her office. A few weeks later, Micheau was in her office adjacent to Quiller’s classroom. She and Rita Franklin, who was at the school that day as a School Improvement Coach, heard a loud commotion outside the office and went to investigate. When they came out of the office, they saw the school security guard already moving toward the sounds emanating from Quiller’s classroom. Upon arrival at the classroom, Micheau and Franklin heard Quiller talking very loudly to her students. She threatened to throw one student’s test paper into the trash. She told the students that the work they were being asked to do was third-grade work and they still could not get it right. She referred to the students as “hooligans” or “hoodlums.” When Quiller saw Micheau and Franklin outside her door, she reduced the volume and changed the content of her comments to the students. Quiller’s demeanor and actions were inconsistent with professional behavior by a teacher. Quiller denies making any of the alleged statements, except for the comment about some of the work being third-grade level. According to Quiller, that comment was made about some supplemental work she had assigned to an algebra project; she told the students it was third-grade work so they should not be intimidated by it. As to the comments about being flunkies, Quiller maintains that all she said was that the boys were flunking her class, although that would not have been an appropriate thing to say in front of other students. While Quiller seems to be generally honest and forthright, the most credible evidence is that she made remarks to the students along the lines of what Franklin and Micheau reported. Crimley, the security guard who was also present during one of the outbursts, heard Quiller say something about “getting this kid out of my damn class.” Crimley usually went into Quiller’s classroom three-to-five times a day but never heard her curse at students during those visits. Crimley attempted to testify at final hearing that some students had recanted their accusations against Quiller because “it had gone too far” and they did not want Quiller to be sanctioned. That testimony was not allowed due to its hearsay nature, but it is also inconsistent with the testimony of the students who testified at final hearing. On another occasion, Quiller was talking loudly to a student named Wayne and one or two other male students. The boys were doing some sort of vulgar dance and were attempting to enter the classroom at about the time the tardy bell was ringing. Quiller said something to the effect of “you are a bunch of flunkies and you need my class” and “your dirty ass can’t come into my class.” Both Micheau and another teacher, Ms. Crowden- Richardson, heard those comments. By the end of the first semester, i.e., about the time of the winter break from school, Principal Davis began getting additional complaints from students and their parents about Quiller. T.C., who was likely about to fail Quiller’s class, remembers hearing Quiller saying such things as “you kids can’t remember [sh--],” and “[N---s] always coming into my class and sleeping,” and she said students were coming into her class when high on drugs. C.F., who had a D and C on his first two grade reports from Quiller's class, heard Quiller say, “Y’all don’t do [sh--],” and also that students had been “smoking weed.” A.P., a D and F student in Quiller’s class, reported that Quiller told the class to “shut the [f---] up,” told kids to get their “ass” out of the classroom, and referred to students as “[N---s].” A.P. said these things were not yelled in anger, but in a normal tone of voice. F.H., an admittedly problem student, remembers Quiller telling a student to “Sit your ass down and come to class on time.” She also heard Quiller say, “[N---], please,” or some such comment. None of the aforementioned students’ testimony was individually very persuasive. Each of the students was struggling in class and had received their poor grades just prior to the time of the comments they reported hearing. It is certainly possible they had an axe to grind with Quiller. One student (D.R.) who testified that he never heard Quiller make such comments was passing the class, had regular attendance, and generally commended Quiller for being strict and stern with problem students. Nonetheless, the students’ description of Quiller’s comments and behavior was fairly consistent. The things they reported Quiller saying were very similar to contemporaneously written statements from them and other students. The alleged remarks were similar in nature to one another but not exactly the same, so the comments did not seem rehearsed or planned. The students were very direct and unwavering when testifying at final hearing. The greater weight of the evidence supports the contention that Quiller used inappropriate language in her classroom. In the letter notifying Quiller of her termination from employment, it is alleged that Quiller made the following inappropriate communications: “Kids do not do [sh--],” “You all should know this [sh--] already,” “Shut the [f---] up,” “Get out of my [f---ing] class,” “You do not do your [f---ing] work,” “You little [N---s],” and “You are all some lazy [N---s] for coming to class late.” There was not enough credible testimony to support all of the allegations that each of those things was said to students or in the presence of students. There was, however, sufficient evidence to support that some of those statements had likely been made. The contemporaneous written statements by students and staff support the verbal recollections made at final hearing, at least in part. While the students were making disparaging comments about Quiller, she was in turn making complaints to school administration concerning the program. She lamented the lack of materials and raised concerns about her own safety in the classroom. More than once, Quiller walked out of her classroom as she became too frustrated to teach. It was undoubtedly a very difficult situation for Quiller and other teachers. All in all, the Bridge program had elements of success as well as some problems. Some of the students were able to graduate with their classmates, some were able to catch up to those in their age cohorts, and some came to the realization that school simply would not be appropriate for them. The program gave students a good chance to make up for past failures. But it was not a panacea and did not work for everyone. Quiller asked that certain students be removed from her classes because she believed they were poisoning the other students. Some were removed, some were not. Quiller gave far more D's and F's to her students than other teachers in the program. Many of her students began to receive passing grades after Quiller was replaced, however. Quiller maintains that the low grades were given because the students earned them, i.e., they were not issued as punishment or retribution for bad behavior. But the students’ subsequent success under a different teacher suggests otherwise. Quiller appeared unemotional and stoic when discussing the allegations against her. Some of her responses to questions at final hearing seemed to be aimed at avoiding the allegations rather than denying them. She had undeniably been placed in a very trying and vexatious situation and tried to make the best of it, but she very well may have crossed the line at times with her words and behavior. It is impossible to place oneself in the environment in which Quiller was working, but it is easy to see that the classroom problems she faced could drive a person to outbursts on occasion. As opined by Davis and Micheau, there is never a valid reason to curse at students, but there are times when doing so could be more understandable. Quiller had been reprimanded in the past for using profanity in the presence of students. She received discipline on two separate occasions for her language. While she denied the allegations, there is some support for the premise that Quiller, on occasion, used profanity around or directly to her students. Even those who support her recognized that Quiller would sometimes use profanity, albeit fairly innocuous and restrained in nature. There is a strong suggestion in the testimony that Quiller was using such language in the hopes it would resonate with these students, described as the worst of the worst. However, there is no acceptable rationale for using such language around students. Quiller was placed in an almost untenable situation with the students assigned to her classes. They were unruly and generally well behind academically. She did not have all the tools needed to work with the students and her classes were too large. Nonetheless, she was expected to maintain her composure and professionalism. While that is easy to say without “walking a mile in her shoes,” it is still a prerequisite for teaching that the teacher act professionally and not do anything to disparage the students. Quiller was by all accounts a good teacher prior to her involvement in the Bridge for Success program. She received a most difficult teaching certification and had favorable annual reviews for most of her time as a teacher. She was sought and hired as a teacher at Ribault on the basis of her distinguished career and training. She is not a bad person or a bad teacher. However, she succumbed to a harsh situation and failed to maintain her decorum. Quiller’s prior disciplinary history included the following: December 2001--A written reprimand (Step II discipline) for using profanity in the presence of students; April 2013, 11 years later--A verbal reprimand (Step I) for making an inappropriate comment to a student; October 2013--A written reprimand (Step II) for using profanity and derogatory language in the presence of students; and February 26, 2014--The notice of termination at issue in the present case (Step IV). The School Board began its recent discipline of Quiller with a Step I verbal reprimand followed by a Step II written reprimand. Due to the nature of Quiller’s conduct, the School Board did not believe it had to follow the Step II discipline with Step III discipline, i.e., suspension without pay. Rather, it went directly to the most severe and extreme level of discipline, Step IV--Termination of employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Duval County School Board, rescinding its termination of the employment of Joyce Quiller and, instead, suspending her for a period of time without pay and reassigning her to a less-challenging position. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Wendy Byndloss, Esquire Assistant General Counsel City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Stephanie M. Schaap, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Dr. Nikolai P. Vitti, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Pam Stewart, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
